24 research outputs found

    Analysis of English language employment support provision in London for JSA and ESA WRAG customers

    Get PDF
    The Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (Inclusion) was commissioned by the Greater London Authority to examine pre-employment English language provision in London and how it can be improved to help support Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), and Employment and Support Allowance work related activity group (ESA WRAG) customers into work

    Lone parent obligations: destinations of lone parents after Income Support eligibility ends (Research report no 710)

    Get PDF
    "As part of the Lone Parent Obligations (LPO) changes, from November 2008 lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or over were no longer entitled to receive Income Support (IS) solely on the grounds of being a lone parent. Since then, the age of the youngest child has reduced to ten and over from October 2009 and seven and over from October 2010. Lone parents who are no longer eligible for IS have been able to move to other benefits as appropriate, including Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). The JSA regime has been amended to include flexibilities for parents, for example, in the hours of work they are required to seek. The aim of this evaluation is to explore whether and how lone parent employment interventions provide an effective incentive to look for paid employment, alongside an effective package of support for workless lone parents, to enable them to find, enter and sustain paid employment." - Page 1

    Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received

    Get PDF
    Background The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. Objective To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts. Design, setting, and participants This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. Intervention Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores. Results and limitations According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa. Conclusions Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group. Patient summary More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common

    Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

    Get PDF
    Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

    Restoration of blanket peatlands

    Get PDF
    There is concern that ecosystem services provided by blanket peatlands have come under threat due to increasing degradation. Blanket peatlands are subject to a wide range of drivers of degradation and are topographically variable. As a result, many degradation forms can develop, including those resulting from eroding artificial drainage, incising gullies and areas of bare peat. Many degraded blanket peatlands have undergone restoration measures since the turn of the century. However, there has been little formal communication of the techniques used and their success. Using practitioner knowledge and a review of the available literature, this paper discusses the methodologies used for restoring sloping blanket peatlands. It then considers current understanding of the impact of restoration on blanket peatland ecosystem services. There is a paucity of research investigating impacts of several common restoration techniques and much more is needed if informed management decisions are to be made and funding is to be appropriately spent. Where data are available we find that restoration is largely beneficial to many ecosystem services, with improvements being observed in water quality and ecology. However, the same restoration technique does not always result in the same outcomes in all locations. The difference in response is predominantly due to the spatial and temporal heterogeneity inherent in all blanket peatlands. Peatland practitioners must take this variability into account when designing restoration strategies and monitoring impact

    Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)

    Get PDF
    Objective To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. Patients and Methods Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. Results Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. Conclusion Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes

    Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: is it ‘what you do’ or ‘the way that you do it’? A UK Perspective on Technique and Quality Assurance

    Full text link
    corecore