Dunstan Foundation paper by John Mant

Don Dunstan Oral History Project interview transcripts. Conditions of use: Anyone wanting to edit, reproduce, publish (including electronic publication on the Internet), broadcast, transmit, perform or adapt the interview in the interviewee's lifetime should send the interviewee a copy of anything written or makes reference to this article. Contact the Special Collections Librarian, Flinders University Library, [email protected] Foundation Paper by John Mant provided 30 April 2011, based on interview with Andrew Strickland and George Lewkowicz on 28 June 2010. John Mant was Ministerial Advisor and Director General HURA (South Australian Department of Housing, Urban and Regional Affairs) from 1976–1979

The Infectious Diseases BioBank at King's College London: archiving samples from patients infected with HIV to facilitate translational research

The King's College London (KCL) Infectious Diseases BioBank opened in 2007 and collects peripheral venous blood (PVB) from individuals infected with pathogens including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). PVBs are fractionated into plasmas, lymphocytes and DNA and are then frozen. All donations are from subjects who have given 'open consent' so samples can be used for virtually any type of biomedical research. The HIV component of the BioBank contains samples from over 400 donations from 138 HIV+ patients. Thus, the KCL Infectious Diseases BioBank - together with establishments such as the Spanish HIV BioBank - is likely to expedite translational research into this infection

Planning as urban management : a critical assessment

A long-standing debaJe over the nature and merits of 'rational comprehensive' versus 'incrementalist' models of public decision-making is continued in the papers on their application to planning by Max Neutze andlohnMant. Neutze reviews the post-war optomistic rise of comprehensive planning, and its subsequent replacement by more modest 'urban management' strategies in the wake of its apparent failure to 'deliver the goods'. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a growing perception of the planning process as inherently political, of end-state planning as inflexible and bureaucratic, of collective action as less beneficial socially and economical}y than individual, and of the inability of planning to substantially affect the lot of the poor. This perception led to the development of minimalist and prophylactic planning strategies and a retreat from bold and visionary planning approaches which require sufficient determination to allow long-term decision-making. Master planning assumes the lead should be taken by a planning authority with a comprehensive view of all parts of the system. I ncrementalist approaches implicitly accept the leading role of the private sector despite possible detriments, especially in the area of service provision efficiency. The shift to urban management allows flexible responses to individual decisions, a characteristic particularly useful in the area of environmental and amenity protection, but it sacrifices the benefits of continuing commitments to a choosen alternative. The gains inflexibility which come with the kind of urban management which is less oriented to a long-term vision will necessarily be accompanied by losses in efficiency through less effective coordination between different investment decisions, and an inability to consider large scale alternatives in patterns of development. Mant argues that urban management is not an instrument of planning. Plan-making is an instrument of urban management. Plans are needed from time to time for particular purposes. It is a mistake to conceive of 'planning' as a simple lineal progression from plan to implementation. Further, 'planning' and 'urban management' should not be conceived as competing approaches to urban public poliq. The making of plans should be seen as a public policy tool for the achievement of del{berate and, at times, quite limited objectives. This paper discusses the role and limitations of plan-making as an urban management tool. The traditional comprehensive end-state planning exercise suffers from the same deficiencies as a public policy tool as other rational comprehensive policy activities.The instruments of planning : urban management by John Mant / Planning as urban management : a critical assessment by Max Neutze

Analyses of variant human papillomavirus type-16 E5 proteins for their ability to induce mitogenesis of murine fibroblasts

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16) E5 protein co-operates with epidermal growth factor to stimulate mitogenesis of murine fibroblasts. Currently, little is known about which viral amino acids are involved in this process. Using sequence variants of HPV-16 E5 we have investigated their effects upon E5 transcription, cell-cycling and cell-growth of murine fibroblasts. RESULTS: We demonstrate that: (i) introduction of Thr(64 )into the reference E5 sequence of HPV-16 abrogates mitogenic activity: both were poorly transcribed in NIH-3T3 cells; (ii) substitution of Leu(44)Val(65 )or, Thr(37)Leu(44)Val(65 )into the HPV-16 E5 reference backbone resulted in high transcription in NIH-3T3 cells, enhanced cell-cycle progression and high cell-growth; and, (iii) inclusion of Tyr(8 )into the Leu(44)Val(65 )backbone inhibited E5 induced cell-growth and repression of p21 expression, despite high transcription levels. CONCLUSION: The effects of HPV-16 E5 variants upon mitosis help to explain why Leu(44)Val(65 )HPV-16 E5 variants are most prevalent in 'wild' pathogenic viral populations in the UK

Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer The FACS Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but is based on limited evidence. OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of scheduled blood measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and computed tomography (CT) as follow-up to detect recurrent colorectal cancer treatable with curative intent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial in 39 National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom; 1202 eligible participants were recruited between January 2003 and August 2009 who had undergone curative surgery for primary colorectal cancer, including adjuvant treatment if indicated, with no evidence of residual disease on investigation. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: CEA only (n = 300), CT only (n = 299), CEA+CT (n = 302), or minimum follow-up (n = 301). Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 3 years; CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis were performed every 6 months for 2 years, then annually for 3 years; and the minimum follow-up group received follow-up if symptoms occurred. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent; secondary outcomes were mortality (total and colorectal cancer), time to detection of recurrence, and survival after treatment of recurrence with curative intent. RESULTS After a mean 4.4 (SD, 0.8) years of observation, cancer recurrence was detected in 199 participants (16.6%; 95% CI, 14.5%-18.7%) overall; 71 of 1202 participants (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.6%-7.2%) were treated for recurrence with curative intent, with little difference according to Dukes staging (stage A, 5.1% [13/254]; stage B, 6.1% [34/553]; stage C, 6.2% [22/354]). Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was 2.3% (7/301) in the minimum follow-up group, 6.7% (20/300) in the CEA group, 8% (24/299) in the CT group, and 6.6% (20/302) in the CEA+CT group. Compared with minimum follow-up, the absolute difference in the percentage of patients treated with curative intent in the CEA group was 4.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-7.9%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% CI, 1.23-7.33), in the CT group was 5.7% (95% CI, 2.2%-9.5%; adjusted OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.51-8.69), and in the CEA+CT group was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-7.9%; adjusted OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.10-8.71). The number of deaths was not significantly different in the combined intensive monitoring groups (CEA, CT, and CEA+CT; 18.2% [164/901]) vs the minimum follow-up group (15.9% [48/301]; difference, 2.3%; 95% CI, −2.6% to 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients who had undergone curative surgery for primary colorectal cancer, intensive imaging or CEA screening each provided an increased rate of surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent compared with minimal follow-up; there was no advantage in combining CEA and CT. If there is a survival advantage to any strategy, it is likely to be small. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: 4145854

Self-monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertension: an internet-based survey of UK GPs.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that most GPs in the UK use self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) to monitor the control of hypertension rather than for diagnosis. This study sought to assess current practice in the use of self-monitoring and any changes in practice following more recent guideline recommendations. AIM: To survey the views and practice of UK GPs in 2015 with regard to SMBP and compare them with a previous survey carried out in 2011. DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of a regionally representative sample of 300 UK GPs. METHOD: GPs completed an online questionnaire concerning the use of SMBP in the management of hypertension. Analyses comprised descriptive statistics, tests for between-group differences (z, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ2 tests), and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Results were available for 300 GPs (94% of those who started the survey). GPs reported using self-monitoring to diagnose hypertension (169/291; 58%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 52 to 64) and to monitor control (245/291; 84%; 95% CI = 80 to 88), the former having significantly increased since 2011 (from 37%; 95% CI = 33 to 41; P<0.001) with no change in monitoring for control. More than half of GPs used higher systolic thresholds for diagnosis (118/169; 70%; 95% CI = 63 to 77) and treatment (168/225; 75%; 95% CI = 69 to 80) than recommended in guidelines, and under half (120/289; 42%; 95% CI = 36 to 47) adjusted the SMBP results to guide treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Since new UK national guidance in 2011, GPs are more likely to use SMBP to diagnose hypertension. However, significant proportions of GPs continue to use non-standard diagnostic and monitoring thresholds. The use of out-of-office methods to improve the accuracy of diagnosis is unlikely to be beneficial if suboptimal thresholds are used.This study was funded by the British Hypertension Society and the NIHR. Ben Fletcher receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR) Doctoral Studentship. Richard McManus holds an NIHR Professorship (RP-02-12-015)) and receives funding from the NIHR Oxford CLAHRC. This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Royal College of General Practitioners via https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X68703

RApid Primary care Initiation of Drug treatment for Transient Ischaemic Attack (RAPID-TIA): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People who have a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke are at high risk of a recurrent stroke, particularly in the first week after the event. Early initiation of secondary prevention drugs is associated with an 80% reduction in risk of stroke recurrence. This raises the question as to whether these drugs should be given before being seen by a specialist--that is, in primary care or in the emergency department. The aims of the RAPID-TIA pilot trial are to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial, to analyse cost effectiveness and to ask: Should general practitioners and emergency doctors (primary care physicians) initiate secondary preventative measures in addition to aspirin in people they see with suspected TIA or minor stroke at the time of referral to a specialist? METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pilot randomised controlled trial with a sub-study of accuracy of primary care physician diagnosis of TIA. In the pilot trial, we aim to recruit 100 patients from 30 general practices (including out-of-hours general practice centres) and 1 emergency department whom the primary care physician diagnoses with TIA or minor stroke and randomly assign them to usual care (that is, initiation of aspirin and referral to a TIA clinic) or usual care plus additional early initiation of secondary prevention drugs (a blood-pressure lowering protocol, simvastatin 40 mg and dipyridamole 200 mg m/r bd). The primary outcome of the main study will be the number of strokes at 90 days. The diagnostic accuracy sub-study will include these 100 patients and an additional 70 patients in whom the primary care physician thinks the diagnosis of TIA is possible, rather than probable. For the pilot trial, we will report recruitment rate, follow-up rate, a preliminary estimate of the primary event rate and occurrence of any adverse events. For the diagnostic study, we will calculate sensitivity and specificity of primary care physician diagnosis using the final TIA clinic diagnosis as the reference standard. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will be used to estimate key parameters that are needed to design the main study and to estimate the accuracy of primary care diagnosis of TIA. The planned follow-on trial will have important implications for the initial management of people with suspected TIA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN62019087.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

The INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors. METHODS/DESIGN: INTERVAL is a randomised trial of whole blood donors enrolled from all 25 static centres of NHS Blood and Transplant. Recruitment of about 50,000 male and female donors started in June 2012 and was completed in June 2014. Men have been randomly assigned to standard 12-week versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, while women have been assigned to standard 16-week versus 14-week versus 12-week inter-donation intervals. Sex-specific comparisons will be made by intention-to-treat analysis of outcomes assessed after two years of intervention. The primary outcome is the number of blood donations made. A key secondary outcome is donor quality of life, assessed using the Short Form Health Survey. Additional secondary endpoints include the number of 'deferrals' due to low haemoglobin (and other factors), iron status, cognitive function, physical activity, and donor attitudes. A comprehensive health economic analysis will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: The INTERVAL trial should yield novel information about the effect of inter-donation intervals on blood supply, acceptability, and donors' physical and mental well-being. The study will generate scientific evidence to help formulate blood collection policies in England and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606, 25 January 2012.The trial is funded by NHS Blood and Transplant. The trial’s coordinating centre at the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge has received core support from the UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and the UK National Institute of Health Research (Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre). Investigators at the University of Oxford have been supported by Research and Development Programme of NHSBT, the NHSBT Howard Ostin Trust Fund, the UK National Institute of Health Research (Oxford Biomedical Research Centre) through the Programme Grant NIHR-RP-PG-0310-1004 and the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.This is the published version of the article. It is published by BioMed Central in Trials here: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/15/1/363