The development and process evaluation of PEER : a camp-based programme for adolescents impacted by cancer

Adolescents impacted by their own or a relative’s cancer diagnosis experience significant psychosocial needs. Residential programmes provide opportunities to address these, yet limited evaluation research and unclear reporting of therapeutic and theoretical underpinnings complicate efforts to understand programme effects. This paper reports the development and process evaluation of PEER, a four-day programme with psychosocial (acceptance and commitment therapy, self-compassion) and recreational components for adolescents impacted by their own or a parent/sibling’s cancer. Staff (N = 51) and adolescents (N = 148, 12–17 years) who attended a PEER programme participated in this evaluation. The evaluation of fidelity included measures of facilitators’ confidence to deliver content, adherence to the programme manual, quality of programme delivery, participants’ engagement, and overall satisfaction. The process evaluation included assessment of quality of life, distress, and process variables (psychological flexibility, mindfulness, self-compassion) at pre-programme, post-programme, and two-month follow-up, as well as qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators. Moderation analyses identified predictors of clinically significant improvement in psychosocial outcomes. The programme was delivered with good fidelity, and participants reported high satisfaction and engagement. Approximately 15–20% of participants experienced clinically-meaningful improvements in distress and quality of life; those who reported higher distress and lower baseline psychological flexibility, mindfulness and self-kindness experienced greater improvements. Qualitative feedback additionally evidenced the value of peer connection and support. The evaluation evidences PEER’s feasibility, acceptability and value for adolescents impacted by cancer, particularly those experiencing greater distress. Its success indicates the potential of the therapeutic approaches used, and for community organisations to develop interventions complementing services offered by healthcare systems

Functional analysis of drug resistance-associated mutations in the Trypanosoma brucei Adenosine Transporter 1 (TbAT1) and the proposal of a structural model for the protein

The Trypanosoma brucei aminopurine transporter P2/TbAT1 has long been implicated in the transport of, and resistance to, the diamidine and melaminophenyl arsenical classes of drugs that form the backbone of the pharmacopoeia against African trypanosomiasis. Genetic alterations including deletions and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been observed in numerous strains and clinical isolates. Here, we systematically investigate each reported mutation and assess their effects on transporter function after expression in a tbat1 -/- T. brucei line. Out of a set of six reported SNPs from a reported ‘resistance allele’, none significantly impaired sensitivity to pentamidine, diminazene or melarsoprol, relative to the TbAT1-WT allele, although several combinations, and the deletion of the codon for residue F316, resulted in highly significant impairment. These combinations of SNPs, and ΔF316, also strongly impaired the uptake of [3H]-adenosine and [3H]-diminazene, identical to the tbat1-/- control. The TbAT1 protein model predicted that residues F19, D140 and F316 interact with the substrate of the transporter. Mutation of D140 to alanine resulted in an inactive transporter, whereas the mutation F19A produced a transporter with a slightly increased affinity for [3H]-diminazene, but reduced the uptake rate. The results presented here validate earlier hypotheses of drug binding motifs for TbAT1

Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD):a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Mark Forrest and the programming team at CHaRT; Cynthia Fraser, our information specialist, for assistance with referencing; Moira Swan, who was the dental research nurse and part of the OA team in Newcastle upon Tyne; Louise Campbell for secretarial support and data management; our original statistician in the group, Andy Elders; senior IT manager Gladys Macpherson; senior trial administrator at the TCOD Marilyn Laird; Luke Vale for his involvement with the design of the health economic analysis at the inception of the trial; Maria Dimitrova, who assisted the health economists in the collection of unit costs; staff of the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, who assisted with screening eligible patients at dental practices; staff of the North East Commissioning Support Unit who assisted with research payments to dental practices in the north-east; members of the TMC and Periodontal Advisory Group for their ongoing advice and support of the trial; the independent members of the TSC and DMC; and the staff at recruitment sites who facilitated recruitment, treatment and follow-up of trial participants. The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

"Surviving discrimination by pulling together" : LGBTQI cancer patient and carer experiences of minority stress and social support

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer and their carers report poorer psychological outcomes than the general non-LGBTQI cancer population. There is growing acknowledgement that these health inequities can be explained by minority stress, which can be buffered by social support. Study Aim: To examine subjective experiences of minority stress and social support for LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers, drawing on qualitative findings from the Out with Cancer study. Method: An online survey including open ended items was completed by 430 LGBTQI cancer patients and 132 partners and other carers, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status. A sub-sample of 104 patients and 31 carers completed an interview, with a follow-up photovoice activity and second interview completed by 45 patients and 10 carers. Data was thematically analysed using an intersectional theoretical framework. Results: Historical and present-day experiences of discrimination, violence, family rejection and exclusion created a legacy of distress and fear. This impacted on trust of healthcare professionals and contributed to distress and unmet needs in cancer survivorship and care. Social support, often provided by partners and other chosen family, including intimate partners and other LGBTQI people, buffered the negative impacts of minority stress, helping LGBTQI patients deal with cancer. However, some participants lacked support due to not having a partner, rejection from family of origin and lack of support within LGBTQI communities, increasing vulnerability to poor psychological wellbeing. Despite the chronic, cumulative impacts of minority stress, LGBTQI patients and carers were not passive recipients of discriminatory and exclusion in cancer care, demonstrating agency and resistance through collective action and advocacy. Conclusion: LGBTQI people have unique socio-political histories and present-day psycho-social experiences that contribute to distress during cancer. Social support serves to buffer and ameliorate this distress. There is a need for cancer healthcare professionals and support services to be aware of and responsive to these potential vulnerabilities, including the intersectional differences in experiences of minority stress and social support. There is also a need for recognition and facilitation of social support among LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers

LGBTQI cancer patients' quality of life and distress : a comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness

Background: There is growing acknowledgement of the psycho-social vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer. The majority of research to date has focused on cisgender adults with breast or prostate cancer. Study Aim: This study examined psycho-social factors associated with distress and quality of life for LGBTQI cancer patients and survivors, across a range of sexualities and gender identities, intersex status, tumor types, ages and urban/ rural/remote location using an intersectional theoretical framework. Method: 430 LGBTQI people with cancer completed an online survey, measuring distress, quality of life (QOL), and a range of psycho-social variables. Participants included 216 (50.2%) cisgender women, 145 (33.7%) cisgender men, and 63 (14.7%) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. Thirty-one (7.2%) participants reported intersex variation and 90 (20%) were adolescents or young adults (AYA), aged 15-39. The majority lived in urban areas (54.4%) and identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (73.7%), with 10.9% identifying as bisexual, and 10.5% as queer, including reproductive (32.4%) and non-reproductive (67.6%) cancers. Results: Forty-one percent of participants reported high or very high distress levels, 3-6 times higher than previous non-LGBTQI cancer studies. Higher rates of distress and lower QOL were identified in TGD compared to cisgender people, AYAs compared to older people, those who identify as bisexual or queer, compared to those who identify as lesbian, gay or homosexual, and those who live in rural or regional areas, compared to urban areas. Elevated distress and lower QOL was associated with greater minority stress (discrimination in life and in cancer care, discomfort being LGBTQI, lower outness) and lower social support, in these subgroups. There were no differences between reproductive and non-reproductive cancers. For the whole sample, distress and poor QOL were associated with physical and sexual concerns, the impact of cancer on gender and LGBTQI identities, minority stress, and lack of social support. Conclusion: LGBTQI people with cancer are at high risk of distress and impaired QOL. Research and oncology healthcare practice needs to recognize the diversity of LGBTQI communities, and the ways in which minority stress and lack of social support may affect wellbeing

Attitudes, knowledge and practice behaviours of oncology health care professionals towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) patients and their carers : a mixed-methods study

Objective: There is growing recognition that health care professionals (HCPs) and policy makers are insufficiently equipped to provide culturally competent care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) cancer patients and their families. We examined HCP attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding LGBTQI cancer care using a mixed-methods research design. Method: Surveys were completed by 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%), and clinical leadership roles (11%); 48 of the surveyed HCPs were interviewed. Results: Most HCPs reported being comfortable treating LGBTQI patients, but reported low levels of confidence and knowledge and systemic barriers to LGBTQI cancer care. Most wanted more education and training, particularly on trans and gender-diverse people (TGD) and those born with intersex variations. Conclusion: Education of HCPs and health system changes are required to overcome barriers to the provision of culturally competent cancer care for LGBTQI patients. Practice implications: These findings reinforce the need for inclusion of LGBTQI content in HCP education and professional training curricula, and institutional support for LGBTQI-inclusive practice behaviours. This includes administrative and visual cues to signal safety of LGBTQI patients within cancer care, facilitating inclusive environments, and the provision of tailored patient-centred care

LGBTQI inclusive cancer care : a discourse analytic study of health care professional, patient and carer perspectives

Background: Awareness of the specific needs of LGBTQI cancer patients has led to calls for inclusivity, cultural competence, cultural safety and cultural humility in cancer care. Examination of oncology healthcare professionals’ (HCP) perspectives is central to identifying barriers and facilitators to inclusive LGBTQI cancer care. Study Aim: This study examined oncology HCPs perspectives in relation to LGBTQI cancer care, and the implications of HCP perspectives and practices for LGBTQI patients and their caregivers. Method: 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%) and leadership (11%) positions took part in a survey; 48 HCPs completed an interview. 430 LGBTQI patients, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status, and 132 carers completed a survey, and 104 LGBTQI patients and 31 carers undertook an interview. Data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Results: Three HCP subject positions – ways of thinking and behaving in relation to the self and LGBTQI patients – were identified:’Inclusive and reflective’ practitioners characterized LGBTQI patients as potentially vulnerable and offered inclusive care, drawing on an affirmative construction of LGBTQI health. This resulted in LGBTQI patients and their carers feeling safe and respected, willing to disclose sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) status, and satisfied with cancer care. ‘Egalitarian practitioners’ drew on discourses of ethical responsibility, positioning themselves as treating all patients the same, not seeing the relevance of SOGI information. This was associated with absence of LGBTQI-specific information, patient and carer anxiety about disclosure of SOGI, feelings of invisibility, and dissatisfaction with healthcare. ‘Anti-inclusive’ practitioners’ expressed open hostility and prejudice towards LGBTQI patients, reflecting a cultural discourse of homophobia and transphobia. This was associated with patient and carer distress, feelings of negative judgement, and exclusion of same-gender partners. Conclusion: Derogatory views and descriptions of LGBTQI patients, and cis-normative practices need to be challenged, to ensure that HCPs offer inclusive and affirmative care. Building HCP’s communicative competence to work with LGBTQI patients needs to become an essential part of basic training and ongoing professional development. Visible indicators of LGBTQI inclusivity are essential, alongside targeted resources and information for LGBTQI people

Almost invisible : a review of inclusion of LGBTQI people with cancer in online patient information resources

Objective: This review assessed the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people in online cancer information. Methods: The websites of Australian cancer organizations were reviewed to identify if they included LGBTQI people and the extent and nature of this inclusion. Websites that did not include LGBTQI people were then reviewed to identify if information was implicitly LGBTQI inclusive. International LGBTQI cancer information resources were reviewed to identify key content. Results: Of sixty-one Australian cancer organization websites reviewed, eight (13%) mentioned LGBTQI people, including 13 information resources targeted to LGBTQI people and 19 general cancer information resources that mentioned LGBTQI people. For Australian cancer websites that did not mention LGBTQI people, 88% used gender neutral language to refer to partners, 69% included a range of sexual behaviours, 13% used gender neutral language when referring to hormones or reproductive anatomy but none acknowledged diverse relationship types. Internationally, 38 LGBTQI-specific cancer information resources were identified. Conclusions: Cancer patient information resources need to be LGBTQI inclusive. LGBTQI-targeted resources are required to address this population's unique needs and improve cultural safety and cancer outcomes. Practice implications: Recommendations are provided for LGBTQI inclusive cancer patient information resources

Diagnostic performance of a faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: an evaluation in the South West of England

Abstract: Background: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of possible colorectal cancer in English primary care in 2017, underpinned by little primary care evidence. Methods: All healthcare providers in the South West of England (population 4 million) participated in this evaluation. 3890 patients aged ≥50 years presenting in primary care with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer had a FIT from 01/06/2018 to 31/12/2018. A threshold of 10 μg Hb/g faeces defined a positive test. Results: Six hundred and eighteen (15.9%) patients tested positive; 458 (74.1%) had an urgent referral to specialist lower gastrointestinal (GI) services within three months. Forty-three were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. 3272 tested negative; 324 (9.9%) had an urgent referral within three months. Eight were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. Positive predictive value was 7.0% (95% CI 5.1–9.3%). Negative predictive value was 99.8% (CI 99.5–99.9%). Sensitivity was 84.3% (CI 71.4–93.0%), specificity 85.0% (CI 83.8–86.1%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (CI 0.86–0.96). A threshold of 37 μg Hb/g faeces would identify patients with an individual 3% risk of cancer. Conclusions: FIT performs exceptionally well to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care; a higher threshold may be appropriate in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis

Streptococcal peritonitis in Australian peritoneal dialysis patients: predictors, treatment and outcomes in 287 cases

Background There has not been a comprehensive, multi-centre study of streptococcal peritonitis in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) to date. Methods The predictors, treatment and clinical outcomes of streptococcal peritonitis were examined by binary logistic regression and multilevel, multivariate poisson regression in all Australian PD patients involving 66 centres between 2003 and 2006. Results Two hundred and eighty-seven episodes of streptococcal peritonitis (4.6% of all peritonitis episodes) occurred in 256 individuals. Its occurrence was independently predicted by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander racial origin. Compared with other organisms, streptococcal peritonitis was associated with significantly lower risks of relapse (3% vs 15%), catheter removal (10% vs 23%) and permanent haemodialysis transfer (9% vs 18%), as well as a shorter duration of hospitalisation (5 vs 6 days). Overall, 249 (87%) patients were successfully treated with antibiotics without experiencing relapse, catheter removal or death. The majority of streptococcal peritonitis episodes were treated with either intraperitoneal vancomycin (most common) or first-generation cephalosporins for a median period of 13 days (interquartile range 8–18 days). Initial empiric antibiotic choice did not influence outcomes. Conclusion Streptococcal peritonitis is a not infrequent complication of PD, which is more common in indigenous patients. When treated with either first-generation cephalosporins or vancomycin for a period of 2 weeks, streptococcal peritonitis is associated with lower risks of relapse, catheter removal and permanent haemodialysis transfer than other forms of PD-associated peritonitis.Stacey O'Shea, Carmel M Hawley, Stephen P McDonald, Fiona G Brown, Johan B Rosman, Kathryn J Wiggins, Kym M Bannister and David W Johnso