Supportive care for men with prostate cancer:why are the trials not working? A systematic review and recommendations for future trials

Men with prostate cancer are likely to have a long illness and experience psychological distress for which supportive care may be helpful. This systematic review describes the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of supportive care for men with prostate cancer, taking into account treatment pathway and components of interventions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Psychinfo were searched from inception––July 2013 for randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Twenty-six studies were included (2740 participants). Interventions were delivered pre and during (n = 12), short-term (n = 8), and longer term (18 months) (n = 5) after primary treatment. No interventions were delivered beyond this time. Few trials recruited ethnic minorities and none recruited men in same sex relationships. Intervention components included information, education, health professional discussion, homework, peer discussion, buddy support, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive restructuring, psychoeducation, Reiki and relaxation. Most interventions were delivered for 5–10 weeks. Risk of bias of trials was assessed as unclear for most domains due to lack of information. The majority of trials measuring quality of life and depression found no effect. Relatively few trials measured anxiety, coping skills and self-efficacy, and the majority found no effect. No cost data were available. Trials of supportive care for men with prostate cancer cover a range of interventions but are limited by population diversity, inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, and inability to assess risk of bias. Recommendations on design and conduct of future trials are presented

Getting out and about in older adults: the nature of daily trips and their association with objectively assessed physical activity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A key public health objective is increasing health-enhancing physical activity (PA) for older adults (OAs). Daily trip frequency is independently associated with objectively assessed PA volumes (OAs). Little is known about correlates and these trips' transport mode, and how these elements relate to PA. Purpose: to describe the frequency, purpose, and travel mode of daily trips in OAs, and their association with participant characteristics and objectively-assessed PA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants (n = 214, aged 78.1 SD 5.7 years), completed a seven-day trips log recording daily-trip frequency, purpose and transport mode. Concurrently participants wore an accelerometer which provided mean daily steps (steps·d^-1), and minutes of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA·d^-1). Participants' physical function (PF) was estimated and demographic, height and weight data obtained.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Trip frequency was associated with gender, age, physical function, walking-aid use, educational attainment, number of amenities within walking distance and cars in the household. Participants reported 9.6 (SD 4.2) trips per week (trips·wk^-1). Most trips (61%) were by car (driver 44%, passenger 17%), 30% walking or cycling (active) and 9% public transport/other. Driving trips·wk^-1were more common in participants who were males (5.3 SD 3.6), well-educated (5.0 SD 4.3), high functioning (5.1 SD 4.6), younger (5.6 SD 4.9), affluent area residents (5.1 SD 4.2) and accessing > one car (7.2 SD 4.7). Active trips·wk^-1were more frequent in participants who were males (3.4 SD 3.6), normal weight (3.2 SD 3.4), not requiring walking aids (3.5 SD 3.3), well-educated (3.7 SD 0.7), from less deprived neighbourhoods (3.9 SD 3.9) and with ≥ 8 amenities nearby (4.4 SD 3.8).</p> <p>Public transport, and active trip frequency, were significantly associated with steps·d^-1(p < 0.001), even after adjustment for other trip modes and potential confounders. Public transport, active, or car driving trips were independently associated with minutes MVPA·d^-1(p < 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Daily trips are associated with objectively-measured PA as indicated by daily MVPA and steps. Public transport and active trips are associated with greater PA than those by car, especially as a car passenger. Strategies encouraging increased trips, particularly active or public transport trips, in OAs can potentially increase their PA and benefit public health.</p

Dementia priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance: using patient and public involvement and the evidence base to inform the research agenda.

BACKGROUND: The James Lind Alliance (JLA) created an approach to elicit the views of those under-represented in research priority exercises. Building on this, the JLA Dementia Priority Setting Partnership was set up as an independent and evidence-based project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions ('uncertainties') about prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care relating to dementia. METHODS: A survey was widely disseminated to stakeholders with an interest in the needs of the older population. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the large amount of questions collected from which research questions were developed using PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). Each question was checked against an extensive evidence base of high-quality systematic reviews to verify whether they were true uncertainties. FINDINGS: One thousand five hundred and sixty-three questionnaires were received, from people with dementia, carers/relatives, and health and care professionals; 85 uncertainties were identified from other sources. Questions were refined and formatted iteratively into 146 unique uncertainties. An interim prioritisation process involving diverse organisations identified the top 25 ranked questions. At a final face-to-face prioritisation workshop, 18 people representing the above constituencies arrived by consensus at the top 10 priority questions. The impact of patient and public involvement on the priorities is discussed. INTERPRETATION: The long (146 questions) and top 10 lists of dementia research priorities provide a focus for researchers, funders and commissioners. They highlight a need for more research into care for people with dementia and carers, and a need for high-quality effectiveness trials in all aspects of dementia research.This work was funded by the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (grant number RG66301) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. No funding source had a role in the preparation of this paper, or the decision to submit it for publication.This is the final published version of the article. It was originally published in Age and Ageing (Age and Ageing 2015; 44: 985–993 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv143). The final version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv14

Reasons for and consequences of missed appointments in general practice in the UK: questionnaire survey and prospective review of medical records

Background Missed appointments are a common occurrence in primary care in the UK, yet little is known about the reasons for them, or the consequences of missing an appointment. This paper aims to determine the reasons for missed appointments and whether patients who miss an appointment subsequently consult their general practitioner (GP). Secondary aims are to compare psychological morbidity, and the previous appointments with GPs between subjects and a comparison group. Methods Postal questionnaire survey and prospective medical notes review of adult patients missing an appointment and the comparison group who attended appointments over a three week period in seven general practices in West Yorkshire. Results Of the 386 who missed appointments 122 (32%) responded. Of the 386 in the comparison group 223 (58%) responded, resulting in 23 case-control matched pairs with complete data collection. Over 40% of individuals who missed an appointment and participated said that they forgot the appointment and a quarter said that they tried very hard to cancel the appointment or that it was at an inconvenient time. A fifth reported family commitments or being too ill to attend. Over 90% of the patients who missed an appointment subsequently consulted within three months and of these nearly 60% consulted for the stated problem that was going to be presented in the missed consultation. The odds of missing an appointment decreased with increasing age and were greater among those who had missed at least one appointment in the previous 12 months. However, estimates for comparisons between those who missed appointments and the comparison group were imprecise due to the low response rate. Conclusion Patients who miss appointments tend to cite practice factors and their own forgetfulness as the main reasons for doing so, and most attend within three months of a missed appointment. This study highlights a number of implications for future research. More work needs to be done to engage people who miss appointments into research in a meaningful way