Associations Between Sexual Orientation and Overall and Site-Specific Diagnosis of Cancer: Evidence From Two National Patient Surveys in England.

Purpose To address gaps in evidence on the risk of cancer in people from sexual minorities. Patients and Methods We used data from 796,594 population-based English General Practice Patient Survey responders to explore the prevalence of self-reported diagnoses of cancer in the last 5 years among sexual minorities compared with heterosexual women and men. We analyzed data from 249,010 hospital-based English Cancer Patient Experience Survey responders with sexual orientation as a binary outcome, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth, Revision, diagnosis as covariate-38 different common and rarer cancers, with breast and prostate cancer as baseline categories for women and men, respectively-to examine whether people from sexual minorities are over- or under-represented among different cancer sites. For both analyses, we used logistic regression, stratified by sex and adjusted for age. Results A diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 years was more commonly reported by male General Practice Patient Survey responders who endorsed gay or bisexual orientation compared with heterosexual men (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.49; P < .001) without evidence of a difference between lesbian or bisexual compared with heterosexual women (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.37; P = .19). For most common and rarer cancer sites (30 of 33 in women, 28 of 32 in men), the odds of specific cancer site diagnosis among Cancer Patient Experience Survey respondents seemed to be independent of sexual orientation; however, there were notable differences in infection-related (HIV and human papillomavirus [HPV]) cancers. Gay or bisexual men were over-represented among men with Kaposi's sarcoma (OR, 48.2; 95% CI, 22.0 to 105.6), anal (OR, 15.5; 95% CI, 11.0 to 21.9), and penile cancer (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.7). Lesbian or bisexual women were over-represented among women with oropharyngeal cancer (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0). Conclusion Large-scale evidence indicates that the distribution of cancer sites does not vary substantially by sexual orientation, with the exception of some HPV- and HIV-associated cancers. These findings highlight the importance of HPV vaccination in heterosexual and sexual minority populations.GL is supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist Fellowship (C18081/A18180)

Breast cancer in lesbians and bisexual women: Systematic review of incidence, prevalence and risk studies

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. © 2013 Meads and Moore; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: The UK Parliamentary Enquiry and USA Institute of Medicine state that lesbians may be at a higher risk of breast cancer but there is insufficient information. Lesbians and bisexual (LB) women have behavioural risk-factors at higher rates compared to heterosexuals such as increased alcohol intake and higher stress levels. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women yet income levels in LB women are relatively low. This systematic review investigated all evidence on whether there is, or likely to be, higher rates of breast cancer in LB women. Methods: Cochrane library (CDSR, CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NHSEED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Web of Science (SCI, SSCI), SIGLE and Social Care Online databases were searched to October 2013. Unpublished research and specific lesbian, gay and bisexual websites were checked, as were citation lists of relevant papers. Included were studies in LB populations reporting breast cancer incidence or prevalence rates, risk model results or risk-factor estimates. Inclusions, data-extraction and quality assessment were by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Results: Searches found 198 references. No incidence rates were found. Nine studies gave prevalence estimates - two showed higher, four showed no differences, one showed mixed results depending on definitions, one had no comparison group and one gave no sample size. All studies were small with poor methodological and/or reporting quality. One incidence modelling study suggested a higher rate. Four risk modelling studies were found, one Rosner-Colditz and three Gail models. Three suggested higher and one lower rate in LB compared to heterosexual women. Six risk-factor estimates suggested higher risk and one no difference between LB and heterosexual women. Conclusions: The only realistic way to establish rates in LB women would be to collect sexual orientation within routine statistics, including cancer registry data, or from large cohort studies

Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice. DESIGN: A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data. DATA SOURCES: An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice. RESULTS: Of 18 524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme

Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Background The NHS Health Check programme is a prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management advice to adults aged 40–74 years across England. Its effectiveness depends on uptake. When it was introduced in 2009, it was anticipated that all those eligible would be invited over a 5-year cycle and 75% of those invited would attend. So far in the current cycle from 2013 to 2018, 33.8% of those eligible have attended, which is equal to 48.5% of those invited to attend. Understanding the reasons why some people do not attend is important to maximise the impact of the programmes. Aim To review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks. Design and setting A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Method An electronic literature search was carried out of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016, and the reference lists of all included papers were also screened manually. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies that reported the views of people who were eligible for but had not attended an NHS Health Check. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for not attending included lack of awareness or knowledge, misunderstanding the purpose of the NHS Health Check, aversion to preventive medicine, time constraints, difficulties with access to general practices, and doubts regarding pharmacies as appropriate settings. Conclusion The findings particularly highlight the need for improved communication and publicity around the purpose of the NHS Health Check programme and the personal health benefits of risk factor detection.This work was funded by a grant from Public Health England. Juliet A Usher-Smith was funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Lectureship and Fiona M Walter by an NIHR Clinician Scientist award (RG 68235). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. All researchers were independent of the funding body and the funder had no role in data collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication

NHS Health Check Programme rapid evidence synthesis

Background: The NHS Health Check programme is the largest current prevention initiative in England. Since its introduction in 2009 a growing literature has been published evaluating the first eight years of the programme. These have been summarised in reports published by Public Health England but, to date, no synthesis has been performed. There is, therefore, a need for an independent, comprehensive, rapid evidence synthesis to identify what has been learnt about the NHS Health Check programme so far. Aims and Objectives: To provide a rapid synthesis of the published research evidence on NHS Health Checks, specifically addressing the six research questions posed by Public Health England: 1. Who is and who is not having an NHS Health Check? 2. What are the factors that increase take-up among the population and sub-groups? 3. Why do people not take up an offer of an NHS Health Check? 4. How is primary care managing people identified as being at risk of cardiovascular disease or with abnormal risk factor results? 5. What are patients’ experiences of having an NHS Health Check? 6. What is the effect of the NHS Health Check on disease detection, changing behaviours, referrals to local risk management services, reductions in individual risk factor prevalence, reducing cardiovascular disease risk and on statin and antihypertensive prescribing? Design: A systematic review with descriptive synthesis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data. Data sources: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, OpenGrey, Clinical Trials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and article reference lists. Study selection: Studies identified by the searches were selected for inclusion in the review by two reviewers in a two-step process. First, studies relevant to the NHS Health Check were identified. These were then screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for each of the six research questions. Data extraction: At least two researchers assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Key findings: Coverage varies substantially across regions and in different settings. Multiple definitions used interchangeably make comparisons difficult. It is consistently higher in older people, females and more deprived populations but this may reflect targeting. Outreach services in the community can reach particular socio-demographic groups but better descriptions and robust evaluations are needed. There is a lack of national level studies reporting the characteristics of those who take-up the invitation to an NHS Health Check. Regional studies report uptake between 27% and 53%, similar to national reported uptake (48.3%). Older people, women in younger age groups and men in older age groups, and those from least deprived areas are more likely to take up invitations. Promising methods to increase uptake are modifications to the invitation (3-4% increase), and text message invites or reminders (up to 9% increase). There is a lack of quantitative evidence for the effect of community settings on uptake but qualitative evidence highlights their convenience and the value of community ambassadors. People do not take up the offer of an NHS Health Check due to lack of awareness or knowledge, competing priorities, misunderstanding the purpose, an aversion to preventive medicine, difficulty getting an appointment with a GP, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality of pharmacies. Amongst attendees there are high levels of satisfaction (over 80%). Some reported attendance had acted as a wake-up call and precipitant for lifestyle changes. Others were left with feelings of unmet expectations, were confused about or unable to remember their risk scores, and found lifestyle advice too simplistic and un-personalised. There are wide variations in the process, delivery and content of NHS Health Checks across the country, in part due to different local implementation. Regardless of region or setting those delivering NHS Health Checks reported challenges with workload, IT, funding, and training. Amongst general practice professionals there were concerns about inequality of uptake and doubts about the evidence underpinning the programme and the cost-effectiveness. NHS Health Checks are associated with small increases in disease detection. There is very little data on behaviour change or referrals to lifestyle services. NHS Health Checks are associated with a 3-4% increase in prescribing of statins

Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women

Objectives: To describe cervical cancer screening participation among women who have sex exclusively with women (WSEW) and women who have sex with women and men (WSWM) compared with women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), and women who have never had sex and compare this with bowel (colorectal) and breast screening participation. To explore whether there is evidence of differential stage 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or cervical cancer risk. Methods: We describe cervical, bowel and breast cancer screening uptake in age groups eligible for the national screening programmes, prevalent CIN3 and cervical cancer at baseline, and incident CIN3 and cervical cancer at five years follow-up, among 218,674 women in UK Biobank, a cohort of healthy volunteers from the UK. Results: Compared with WSEM, in adjusted analysis [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)], WSEW 0.10 (0.08–0.13), WSWM 0.73 (0.58–0.91), and women who have never had sex 0.02 (0.01–0.02) were less likely to report ever having attended cervical screening. There were no differences when considering bowel cancer screening uptake (p = 0.61). For breast cancer screening, attendance was lower among WSWM 0.79 (0.68 to 0.91) and women who have never had sex 0.47 (0.29–0.58), compared with WSEM. There were incident and prevalent cases of both CIN3 and cervical cancer among WSEW and WSWM. Compared with WSEM with a single male partner, among WSEW there was a twofold increase in CIN3 1.91 (1.01 to 3.59); among WSWM with only one male partner, this was 2.25 (1.19 to 4.24). Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of improving uptake of cervical screening among all women who have sex with women and breast screening among WSWM and women who have never had sex

Protocol study: Sexual and reproductive health knowledge, information-seeking behaviour and attitudes among Saudi women: A questionnaire survey of university students

Copyright © 2014 Farih et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background - Sexual and reproductive health (SRH), a basic right for women worldwide, is infrequently researched in countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). No empirical studies of SRH among Saudi women exist. This protocol describes a study to explore the SRH knowledge, information-seeking behaviour and attitudes of Saudi female university students. Methods/Design - This study will administer a questionnaire survey to female students at 13 universities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was developed following a literature search to identify relevant content, with psychometrically tested tools used when available. The content layout and the wording and order of the questions were designed to minimize the risk of bias. The questionnaire has been translated into Arabic and piloted in preparation for administration to the study sample. Ethical approval for the study has been granted (reference no. QMREC2012/54). After questionnaire administration, the data will be collated, analysed and reported anonymously. The findings will be published in compliance with reporting guidelines for survey research. Discussion - This study will be the first to provide fundamental information concerning Saudi females university students SRH knowledge and information needs.King Abdullah Scholarship Program, Saudi Arabi

The Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds: A NICE medical technology guidance

As part of its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited a manufacturer to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings and the final NICE guidance issued. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Debrisoft® to debride wounds compared with saline and gauze, hydrogel and larvae. Separate analyses were conducted for applications in home and applications in a clinic setting. The analysis took an UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. It incorporated the costs of the technologies and supplementary technologies (such as dressings) and the costs of their application by a district nurse. The sponsor concluded that Debrisoft® was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Debrisoft® remained cost saving in most analyses and savings ranged from £77 to £222 per patient compared with hydrogel, from £97 to £347 compared with saline and gauze, and from £180 to £484 compared with larvae depending on the assumptions included in the analysis and whether debridement took place in a home or clinic setting. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness, in particular a lack of comparative studies and that the effectiveness data for the comparators came from studies reporting different clinical endpoints compared with Debrisoft®. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft® and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17).The Birmingham and Brunel Consortium is funded by NICE to act as an External Assessment Centre for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme

Efficacy and safety of co-careldopa as an add-on therapy to occupational and physical therapy in patients after stroke (DARS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

Background Dopamine is a key modulator of striatal function and learning and might improve motor recovery after stroke. Previous small trials of dopamine agonists after stroke provide equivocal evidence of effectiveness on improving motor recovery. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of co-careldopa plus routine occupational and physical therapy during early rehabilitation after stroke. Methods This double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of co-careldopa versus placebo in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy was done at 51 UK NHS acute inpatient stroke rehabilitation services. We recruited patients with new or recurrent clinically diagnosed ischaemic or haemorrhagic (excluding subarachnoid haemorrhage) stroke 5–42 days before randomisation, who were unable to walk 10 m or more, had a score of less than 7 points on the Rivermead Mobility Index, were expected to need rehabilitation, and were able to access rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. Participants were assigned (1:1) using stratified random blocks to receive 6 weeks of oral co-careldopa or matched placebo in addition to routine NHS physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The initial two doses of co-careldopa were 62·5 mg (50 mg of levodopa and 12·5 mg of carbidopa) and the remaining doses were 125 mg (100 mg of levodopa and 25 mg of carbidopa). Participants were required to take a single oral tablet 45–60 min before physiotherapy or occupational therapy session. The primary outcome was ability to walk independently, defined as a Rivermead Mobility Index score of 7 or more, at 8 weeks. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN99643613.Findings Between May 30, 2011, and March 28, 2014, of 1574 patients found eligible, 593 (mean age 68·5 years) were randomly assigned to either the co-careldopa group (n=308) or to the placebo group (n=285), on an average 18 days after stroke onset. Primary outcome data were available for all 593 patients. We found no evidence that the ability to walk independently improved with co-careldopa (125 [41%] of 308 patients) compared with placebo (127 [45%] of 285 patients; odds ratio 0·78 [95% CI 0·53–1·15]) at 8 weeks. Mortality at 12 months did not differ between the two groups (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]). Serious adverse events were largely similar between groups. Vomiting during therapy sessions, after taking the study drug, was the most frequent adverse event and was more frequent in the co-careldopa group than the placebo group (19 [6·2%] vs 9 [3·2%]).Interpretation Co-careldopa in addition to routine occupational and physical therapy does not seem to improve walking after stroke. Further research might identify subgroups of patients with stroke who could benefit from dopaminergic therapy at different doses or times after stroke with more intensive motor therap