Search

BACKGROUND: A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective. AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.

Abstract Purpose We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes. Methods In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18–69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline. Results At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress. Conclusion Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.

INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions constitute the highest burden of disease globally, with healthcare services often utilised inappropriately and overburdened. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel clinical PAthway of CarE programme (PACE programme), where care is provided based on people's risk of poor outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. 716 people with MSK conditions (low back pain, neck pain or knee osteoarthritis) will be recruited in primary care. They will be stratified for risk of a poor outcome (low risk/high risk) using the Short Form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (SF-ÖMSPQ) then randomised to usual care (n=358) or the PACE programme (n=358). Participants at low risk in the PACE programme will receive up to 3 sessions of guideline based care from their primary healthcare professional (HCP) supported by a custom designed website (mypainhub.com). Those at high risk will be referred to an allied health MSK specialist who will conduct a comprehensive patient-centred assessment then liaise with the primary HCP to determine further care. Primary outcome (SF 12-item PCS) and secondary outcomes (eg, pain self-efficacy, psychological health) will be collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be measured as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Health economic analysis will include direct and indirect costs. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Primary and secondary outcomes will be analysed independently, using generalised linear models. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies embedded within the trial will evaluate patient experience, health professional practice and interprofessional collaboration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from the following Human Research Ethics Committees: The University of Sydney (2018/926), The University of Queensland (2019000700/2018/926), University of Melbourn

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old actively consider taking daily low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for 2.5 to 5 years to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the change of national CRC prevention guidelines, there has been no active implementation of the guidelines into clinical practice. We aim to test the efficacy of a health consultation and decision aid, using a novel expected frequency tree (EFT) to present the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin prior to a general practice consultation with patients aged 50-70 years, on informed decision-making and uptake of aspirin. METHODS: Approximately five to seven general practices in Victoria, Australia, will be recruited to participate. Patients 50-70 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner (GP) for any reason, will be invited to participate in the trial. Two hundred fifty-eight eligible participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to intervention or active control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice, sex, and mode of trial delivery (face-to-face or teletrial). There are two co-primary outcomes: informed decision-making at 1-month post randomisation, measured by the Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), and self-reported daily use of aspirin at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict at 1-month and other behavioural changes to reduce CRC risk at both time points. DISCUSSION: This trial will test the efficacy of novel methods for implementing national guidelines to support informed decision-making about taking aspirin in 50-70-year-olds to reduce the risk of CRC and other chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001003965 . Registered on 10 October 2020.

BACKGROUND: Effective implementation requires a comprehensive understanding of individual, organisational and system determinants. This study aimed to compare inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand a complex implementation issue. We used childhood vaccination as a case study, an issue with wide-ranging barriers contributing to low-vaccine uptake internationally. METHODS: The study is based on the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, which was derived from several levels of theory: the 3 components of the COM-B framework (capability, opportunity and motivation) can be mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which is based on 84 underlying constructs. We first conducted a review of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination. Subsequently we (1) inductively coded these barriers into a data-driven framework, using thematic analysis, and (2) deductively mapped the barriers to COM-B and TDF domains and constructs. These processes were undertaken by two authors independently, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Inductive and deductive results were compared. RESULTS: The inductive process coded 583 descriptions of barriers identified from the literature into a framework of 74 barriers in 7 categories. The initial definitions used to map the barriers to deductive domains/constructs led to 89% agreement at the domain level. Resolving discrepancies required further definitions at the construct level. Of the 14 TDF domains, 10 were clearly identified in the data from the barrier reviews. Some domains were not specific enough to differentiate between types of barriers (e.g. Environmental Context and Resources), while other domains were not represented in the review data (e.g. Behavioural Regulation). CONCLUSIONS: Using both inductive and deductive analysis techniques can help achieve a more comprehensive understanding of barriers to health service implementation. The inductive categories repre

INTRODUCTION: Understanding barriers to childhood vaccination is crucial to inform effective interventions for maximising uptake. Published systematic reviews include different primary studies, producing varying lists of barriers. To make sense of this diverse body of literature, a comprehensive level of summary and synthesis is necessary. This overview of systematic reviews maps all potential parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination identified in systematic reviews. It synthesises these into a conceptual framework to inform development of a vaccine barriers assessment tool. METHODS: We applied Joanna Briggs methodology, searching the Epistemonikos review database and reference lists of included reviews to June 2020. Systematic reviews of qualitative or quantitative data on parent-level barriers to routine vaccination in preschool-aged children were included. Reviews addressing influenza, reporting non-modifiable determinants or reporting barriers not relevant to parents were excluded. Where possible, we extracted review details, barrier descriptions and the number, setting and design of primary studies. Two authors independently screened search results and inductively coded barrier descriptions. RESULTS: We screened 464 papers, identifying 30 relevant reviews with minimal overlap. Fourteen reviews included qualitative and quantitative primary studies, seven included quantitative and seven included qualitative studies only. Two did not report included study designs. Two-thirds of reviews (n=20; 67%) only included primary studies from high-income countries. We extracted 573 barrier descriptions and inductively coded these into 64 unique barriers in six overarching categories: (1) Access, (2) Clinic or Health System Barriers, (3) Concerns and Beliefs, (4) Health Perceptions and Experiences, (5) Knowledge and Information and (6) Social or Family Influence. CONCLUSIONS: A global overview of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccine uptake id

Background: The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study is a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, stratified by traditional risk group (low or high phenotypic risk) in the general population. The primary outcome is objectively measured total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include UV exposure at specific time periods, self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Objective: To publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database lock and the start of analysis. Methods: This SAP describes the data synthesis, analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing the outcomes from this trial. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid potential analysis bias that may arise from knowledge of the outcome data. Results: This SAP is consistent with best practice and should enable transparent reporting. Conclusion: This SAP has been developed for the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study and will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity and to minimise analysis bias. Trial registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTR N12617000691347. Registered on 15 May 2017.

It is unclear whether information given about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination during consent may cue parental vaccine hesitancy. Parents were surveyed before and after reading vaccine consent information at a public expo event in Sydney, Australia. We measured vaccine hesitancy with Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccine Short Scale (PACV-SS), informed decision-making with Informed Subscale of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS-IS), items from Stage of Decision Making, Positive Attitude Assessment, Vaccine Safety and Side Effect Concern, and Vaccine Communication Framework (VCF) tools. Overall, 416 parents showed no change in vaccine hesitancy (mean PACV-SS score pre = 1.97, post = 1.94; diff = −0.02 95% CI −0.10 to 0.15) but were more informed (mean DCS-IS score pre = 29.05, post = 7.41; diff = −21.63 95% CI −24.17 to −18.56), were more positive towards vaccination (pre = 43.8% post = 50.4%; diff = 6.5% 95% CI 3.0% to 10.0%), less concerned about vaccine safety (pre = 28.5%, post = 23.0%, diff = −5.6% 95% CI −2.3% to −8.8%) and side effects (pre = 37.0%, post = 29.0%, diff = −8.0% 95% CI −4.0% to −12.0%) with no change in stage of decision-making or intention to vaccinate. Providing information about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination increases parents’ informed decision-making without increasing vaccine hesitancy.

BackgroundDecisions about contraceptive methods are preference sensitive and ideal for shared decision-making (SDM). Migrant and refugee women are vulnerable in terms of accessing evidence-based and culturally and linguistically sensitive contraception information and services. In Australia, Chinese is one of the largest, youngest and fastest growing overseas-born groups. Yet, less is known about their decision-making needs when faced with choosing a contraceptive method.AimExplore Chinese women’s information, communication and support needs when choosing contraceptive methods.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 22 women from Chinese background, aged between 18 and 45 and who had been living in Australia for no more than 10 years. The sample consisted of international students and immigrants with a variety of relationship status. We adapted our interview guide from the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Interview audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and will be analysed using thematic analysis approach.ResultsThis study is ongoing, and results will be updated. Overall, condom and withdrawal methods were commonly known and used by Chinese women because of their convenience, easy access and also because of Chinese women’s lack of knowledge about other available methods. There is a lack of awareness of the role of general practitioners and other healthcare providers role in assisting the decision-making about contraceptive methods. There is also a reluctance to accept hormonal contraceptive methods due to fear of side effects, such as reduced menstrual bleeding, pain, weight gain and effect on future fertility. Participated indicated relying on information from Chinese websites from China or Chinese social media platforms or friends. Some women who’ve sought medical advice from doctors expressed feelings of not being well informed about side-side effects, which contributed to them discontinuing with the chosen method.ConclusionsThe study

Background: People with a family history of major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) report specific psychoeducational needs that are unmet by existing online interventions. This trial aimed to test whether an interactive website for people at familial risk for depression (intervention) would improve intention to adopt, or actual adoption of, depression prevention strategies (primary outcome) and a range of secondary outcome measures. Methods: In this cluster randomised trial, primary care practises were randomised to either provide the link to the intervention or the control website. Primary health care attendees were invited by letter to opt into this study if they had at least one first-degree relative with MDD or BD and were asked to complete online questionnaires at baseline and 2-week follow-up. Results: Twenty general practices were a randomized, and 202 eligible patients completed both questionnaires. Thirty-nine (19.3%) of participants were male and 163 (80.7%) female. At follow-up, compared to controls, the intervention group: (i) were more likely to intend to undergo, or to have actually undergone, psychological therapies (OR = 5.83, 95% CI: 1.58-21.47, p =.008); (ii) had better knowledge of depression risk factors and prevention strategies (mean difference = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.05-0.88, p =.029); and (iii) were more likely to accurately estimate their lifetime risk of developing BD (mean difference = 11.2, 95% CI: -16.52- -5.73, p <.001). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in change from baseline to follow up for any of the remaining outcome measures (Patient Health Questionnaire, Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination Questionnaire and Perceived Risk of Developing MDD). Conclusion: The opt-in nature of the study may have led to participation bias, e.g. underrepresentation of males, and hence may limit generalisability to the broader population at familial risk for depression. This is the first website internation

BACKGROUND: As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient's genomic risk of melanoma. AIM: Using this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs. METHOD: The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: GPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice.

BACKGROUND: People with a family history of major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) report specific psychoeducational needs that are unmet by existing online interventions. This trial aimed to test whether an interactive website for people at familial risk for depression (intervention) would improve intention to adopt, or actual adoption of, depression prevention strategies (primary outcome) and a range of secondary outcome measures. METHODS: In this cluster randomised trial, primary care practises were randomised to either provide the link to the intervention or the control website. Primary health care attendees were invited by letter to opt into this study if they had at least one first-degree relative with MDD or BD and were asked to complete online questionnaires at baseline and 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty general practices were a randomized, and 202 eligible patients completed both questionnaires. Thirty-nine (19.3%) of participants were male and 163 (80.7%) female. At follow-up, compared to controls, the intervention group: (i) were more likely to intend to undergo, or to have actually undergone, psychological therapies (OR = 5.83, 95% CI: 1.58-21.47, p = .008); (ii) had better knowledge of depression risk factors and prevention strategies (mean difference = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.05-0.88, p = .029); and (iii) were more likely to accurately estimate their lifetime risk of developing BD (mean difference = 11.2, 95% CI: -16.52- -5.73, p < .001). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in change from baseline to follow up for any of the remaining outcome measures (Patient Health Questionnaire, Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination Questionnaire and Perceived Risk of Developing MDD). CONCLUSION: The opt-in nature of the study may have led to participation bias, e.g. underrepresentation of males, and hence may limit generalisability to the broader population at familial risk for depression. This is the first website internat

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) has been found to be significantly and positively associated with improved patient outcomes. For an SDM process to occur, patients require functional, communicative, and critical health literacy (HL) skills. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a program to improve health literacy skills for SDM in adults with lower literacy. Methods: An HL program including an SDM component (HL + SDM) and teaching of the three "AskShareKnow" questions was delivered in adult basic education settings in New South Wales, Australia. The program was evaluated using a partially cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing it to standard language, literacy, and numeracy (LLN) training. We measured the effect of these programs on (1) HL skills for SDM (conceptual knowledge, graphical literacy, health numeracy), (2) types of questions considered important for health decision-making, (3) preferences for control in decision-making, and (4) decisional conflict. We also measured AskShareKnow question recall, use, and evaluation in HL + SDM participants. Key Results: There were 308 participants from 28 classes enrolled in the study. Most participants had limited functional HL (71%) and spoke a language other than English at home (60%). In the primary analysis, the HL + SDM program compared with the standard LLN program significantly increased conceptual knowledge (19.1% difference between groups in students achieving the competence threshold; p = .018) and health numeracy (10.9% difference; p = .032), but not graphical literacy (5.8% difference; p = .896). HL + SDM participants were significantly more likely to consider it important to ask questions that would enable SDM compared to standard LLN participants who prioritized nonmedical procedural questions (all p < .01). There was no difference in preferences for control in decision-making or in decisional conflict. Among HL + SDM participants, 79% (n = 85) correctly recalled at least one

BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN126

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. Introduction: The SKAI (Sharing Knowledge About Immunisation) project aims to develop effective communication tools to support primary health care providers' consultations with parents who may be hesitant about vaccinating their children. Aim: This study explored parents' communication needs using a qualitative design. Methods: Parents of at least one child less than five years old were recruited from two major cities and a regional town known for high prevalence of vaccine objection. Focus groups of parents who held similar vaccination attitudes and intentions were convened to discuss experiences of vaccination consultations and explore their communication needs, including preferences. Draft written communication support tools were used to stimulate discussion and gauge acceptability of the tools. Results: Important differences in communication needs between group types emerged. The least hesitant parent groups reported feeling reassured upon reading resources designed to address commonly observed concerns about vaccination. As hesitancy of the group members increased, so did their accounts of the volume and detail of information they required. Trust appeared to be related to apparent or perceived transparency. More hesitant groups displayed increased sensitivity and resistance to persuasive language forms.

We developed and pilot-tested the first online psycho-educational intervention that specifically targets people with a family history of depression (‘LINKS’). LINKS provides genetic risk information and evidence-rated information on preventive strategies for depression and incorporates a risk assessment tool and several videos using professional actors. LINKS was pilot-tested in the general practitioner (GP) setting. The patient sample included people with a family history of at least one first-degree relative (FDR) with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD). Patients attending participating GP practices were invited to enroll in the study by letter from their GP. Patients who self-identified as having at least one first-degree relative (FDR) with MDD or BD were eligible. Patients completed questionnaires, pre-post viewing LINKS, with measures assessing satisfaction, relevance, emotional impact and perceived improvement of understanding. Six GP practices participated, and 24 patients completed both questionnaires. Of these, all reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with LINKS, and 74 % reported that LINKS met their expectations, and 21 % that it exceeded their expectations. LINKS was judged highly acceptable by this sample of GP attendees, and results indicate that an assessment of its effectiveness in a larger controlled trial is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression. DESIGN: An uncontrolled cohort study with pre-decision, immediately post-decision and follow-up measurements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=66) aged 12-25 years with mild, mild-moderate or moderate-severe depression were recruited from two enhanced primary care services. INTERVENTION: Online decision aid with evidence communication, preference elicitation and decision support components. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were ability to make a decision; whether the decision was in line with clinical practice guidelines, personal preferences and values; decisional conflict; perceived involvement; satisfaction with decision; adherence; and depression scores at follow-up. RESULTS: After using the decision aid, clients were more likely to make a decision in line with guideline recommendations (93% vs 70%; P=.004), were more able to make a decision (97% vs 79%; P=.022), had significantly reduced decisional conflict (17.8 points lower (95% CI: 13.3-22.9 points lower) on the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 0-100)) and felt involved and satisfied with their decision. At follow-up, clients had significantly reduced depression symptoms (2.7 points lower (95% CI: 1.3-4.0 points lower) on the Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item scale (range 0-27)) and were adherent to 88% (95% CI: 82%-94%) of treatment courses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for youth depression can help ensure evidence-based, client-centred care, promoting collaboration in this often difficult to engage population.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility and efficacy of a multifaceted model of shared care for men after completion of treatment for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men who had completed treatment for low- to moderate-risk prostate cancer within the previous 8 weeks were eligible. Participants were randomized to usual care or shared care. Shared care entailed substituting two hospital visits with three visits in primary care, a survivorship care plan, recall and reminders, and screening for distress and unmet needs. Outcome measures included psychological distress, prostate cancer-specific quality of life, satisfaction and preferences for care and healthcare resource use. RESULTS: A total of 88 men were randomized (shared care n = 45; usual care n = 43). There were no clinically important or statistically significant differences between groups with regard to distress, prostate cancer-specific quality of life or satisfaction with care. At the end of the trial, men in the intervention group were significantly more likely to prefer a shared care model to hospital follow-up than those in the control group (intervention 63% vs control 24%; P<0.001). There was high compliance with prostate-specific antigen monitoring in both groups. The shared care model was cheaper than usual care (shared care AUS$1411; usual care AUS$1728; difference AUS$323 [plausible range AUS$91-554]). CONCLUSION: Well-structured shared care for men with low- to moderate-risk prostate cancer is feasible and appears to produce clinically similar outcomes to those of standard care, at a lower cost.

© 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Background: Enhancing health literacy can play a major role in improving healthcare and health across the globe. To build higher-order (communicative/critical) health literacy skills among socially disadvantaged Australians, we developed a novel shared decision making (SDM) training programme for adults with lower literacy. The programme was delivered by trained educators within an adult basic education health literacy course. Objective: To explore the experience of teaching SDM within a health literacy programme and investigate whether communicative/critical health literacy content meets learner needs and teaching and institutional objectives. Design and participants: Qualitative interview study with 11 educators who delivered the SDM programme. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework approach; a matrix-based method of thematic analysis. Results: Teachers noted congruence in SDM content and the institutional commitment to learner empowerment in adult education. The SDM programme was seen to offer learners an alternative to their usual passive approach to healthcare decision making by raising awareness of the right to ask questions and consider alternative test/treatment options. Teachers valued a structured approach to training building on foundational skills, with language reinforcement and take-home resources, but many noted the need for additional time to develop learner understanding and cover all aspects of SDM. Challenges for adult learners included SDM terminology, computational numerical risk tasks and understanding probability concepts. Discussion and conclusions: SDM programmes can be designed in a way that both supports teachers to deliver novel health literacy content and empowers learners. Collaboration between adult education and healthcare sectors can build health literacy capacity of those most in need.

The objective of disease screening is to encourage high-risk subjects to seek health care diagnosis and treatment. Mobile phone apps can effectively screen mental health conditions, including depression. However, it is not known how effective such screening methods are in motivating users to discuss the obtained results of such apps with health care professionals. Does a mobile phone depression-screening app motivate users with high depressive symptoms to seek health care professional advice? This study aimed to address this question.This was a single-cohort, prospective, observational study of a free mobile phone depression app developed in English and released on Apple’s App Store. Apple App Store users (aged 18 or above) in 5 countries, that is, Australia, Canada, New Zealand (NZ), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), were recruited directly via the app’s download page. The participants then completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and their depression screening score was displayed to them. If their score was 11 or above and they had never been diagnosed with depression before, they were advised to take their results to their health care professional. They were to follow up after 1 month.A group of 2538 participants from the 5 countries completed PHQ-9 depression screening with the app. Of them, 322 participants were found to have high depressive symptoms and had never been diagnosed with depression, and received advice to discuss their results with health care professionals. About 74% of those completed the follow-up; approximately 38% of these self-reported consulting their health care professionals about their depression score. Only positive attitude toward depression as a real disease was associated with increased follow-up response rate (odds ratio (OR) 3.2, CI 1.38-8.29).A mobile phone depression-screening app motivated some users to seek a depression diagnosis. However, further study should investigate how other app users use the

INTRODUCTION: Men with prostate cancer require long-term follow-up to monitor disease progression and manage common adverse physical and psychosocial consequences of treatment. There is growing recognition of the potential role of primary care in cancer follow-up. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multisite randomised controlled trial of a novel model of shared care for the follow-up of men after completing treatment for low-moderate risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The intervention is a shared care model of follow-up visits in the first 12 months after completing treatment for prostate cancer with the following specific components: a survivorship care plan, general practitioner (GP) management guidelines, register and recall systems, screening for distress and unmet needs and patient information resources. Eligible men will have completed surgery and/or radiotherapy for low-moderate risk prostate cancer within the previous 8 weeks and have a GP who consents to participate. Ninety men will be randomised to the intervention or current hospital follow-up care. Study outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months and include anxiety, depression, unmet needs, prostate cancer-specific quality of life and satisfaction with care. Clinical processes and healthcare resource usage will also be measured. The principal emphasis of the analysis will be on obtaining estimates of the treatment effect size and assessing feasibility in order to inform the design of a subsequent phase III trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia and from all hospital recruitment sites in Western Australia and Victoria. RESULTS: of this phase II trial will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and in conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12610000938000.

Background: The strongest risk factor for depression is having a family history of the condition. Many individuals with a family history of depression are concerned about their personal risk for depression and report unmet educational and psychological support needs. No supportive and/or educational interventions are currently available that target this group of individuals. In this study we will develop and evaluate the first online psycho-educational intervention targeted to individuals with a family history of depression. Genetic risk information and evidence-rated information on preventive strategies for depression will be provided to such individuals in a general practice setting. The intervention will also incorporate a risk assessment tool. The content and delivery of the intervention will be pilot-tested.Methods/design: The proposed intervention will be evaluated in the general practitioner (GPs) setting, using a cluster randomized controlled trial. GP practices will be randomized to provide either access to the online, targeted psycho-educational intervention or brief generic information about depression (control) to eligible patients. Eligibility criteria include having at least one first-degree relative with either major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD). The primary outcome measure is 'intention to adopt, or actual adoption of, risk-reducing strategies'. Secondary outcome measures include: depression symptoms, perceived stigma of depression, knowledge of risk factors for development of depression and risk-reducing strategies, and perceived risk of developing depression or having a recurrence of family history. Over the course of the study, participants will complete online questionnaires at three time points: at baseline, and two weeks and six months after receiving the intervention or control condition.Discussion: This novel psycho-educational intervention will provide individuals with a family history of depression with information on

Item does not contain fulltext, Although many clinicians feel they already use shared decision making, research shows a perception-reality gap. A M Stiggelbout and colleagues discuss why it is important and highlight some best practices.