Assessing awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms: Measure development and results from a population survey in the UK

Background: This paper describes the development of a Cancer Awareness Measure for colorectal (CRC) cancer (Bowel/Colorectal CAM(a)) (study 1) and presents key results from a population-representative survey using the measure (study 2).MethodsStudy 1: Items were taken from the literature and reviewed by expert groups. A series of three validation studies assessed reliability and validity of the measure. To establish test-retest reliability, 49 people over 50 years of age completed the Bowel/Colorectal CAM on two occasions (range 9-14 days, mean 13.5 days). Construct validity was assessed by comparing responses from bowel cancer experts (n = 16) and the lay public (n = 35). Lastly, a brief intervention study tested sensitivity to change with participants (n = 70) randomly allocated to be given a control leaflet or an intervention leaflet and their responses were compared. Study 2: 1520 respondents completed the Bowel/Colorectal CAM in a population survey carried out by TNS-British Market Research Bureau International (TNS-BMRB) in March 2010.ResultsStudy 1: Internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84) was high. Test-retest reliability was over r = 0.7 for warning signs, risk factors and age people are first invited for screening, but lower (between 0.6 and 0.7) for other items (lifetime risk, awareness of bowel cancer screening, age at risk). Bowel cancer experts achieved higher scores than equally educated controls (54.7 [4.3] vs. 42.9 [5.7]; P < 0.001) demonstrating the measure has construct validity and intervention participants showed higher knowledge than controls (51.4 [5.9] vs. 42.9 [5.7]; P < 0.001) suggesting the measure is sensitive to change. Study 2: Respondents recalled on average, one CRC sign and one risk factor. There was particularly low prompted awareness of the signs 'lump in the abdomen' (64%) and 'tiredness' (50%) and several lifestyle risk factors for CRC, e. g. exercise (37%). Respondents from more affluent groups had consistently higher knowledge of signs and risk factors compared to those from more deprived groups.Conclusions: The Bowel/Colorectal CAM meets accepted psychometric criteria for reliability and construct validity and should therefore provide a useful tool for assessment of CRC awareness. The population survey revealed low awareness of several CRC signs and risk factors and emphasises the importance of continuing public education, particularly about the link between lifestyle behaviours and CRC

Sunbed use in children aged 11-17 in England: face to face quota sampling surveys in the National Prevalence Study and Six Cities Study

Objectives To quantify the use of sunbeds in young people across England, identify geographical variation, and explore patterns of use, including supervision

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority. AIM: To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. METHOD: GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models. RESULTS: Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%). CONCLUSION: In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

BACKGROUND: Continual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this. AIM: To characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England. METHOD: Information on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management. RESULTS: Data were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15-86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0-27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more. CONCLUSION: The findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer

Conference report:Improving outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer in the UK

Substantial steps are being made towards early diagnosis. A range of tools are available to help GPs appropriately categorise early symptoms during routine consultations. Various promising new tests and devices are being explored, especially for cancers that frequently present at late stages. The continuing increase in demand on endoscopy services is a major concern, not least because of the shortage of trained practitioners and other healthcare staff. However, screening and collaborative streamlining initiatives might help to improve the relevance of referrals. The question posed in the title of the conference was rhetorical, but a positive answer seems potentially achievable, even in austere times, through facilitating uptake of screening, working to develop the primary-secondary care interface, educating the public and by protecting funds for research

Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England. METHODS: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014-15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: The approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals. CONCLUSION: This new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.GL is supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist Fellowship (award C18081/A18180). GL is an associate director (co-investigator) of the multi-institutional CanTest Research Collaborative funded by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Catalyst award (C8640/A23385

Skin cancer prevention: information, resources and environmental changes

[Extract] The Department of Health (DH) asked the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce public health guidance for the NHS and local authorities on the prevention of skin cancer with specific reference to: provision of information, physical changes to the environment and the supply of sun protection resources