Preferences for interventions designed to increase cervical screening uptake in non-attending young women: how findings from a discrete choice experiment compare with observed behaviours in a trial

Background Young women’s attendance at cervical screening in the UK is continuing to fall and the incidence of invasive cervical cancer has begun to rise. Objectives We assessed the preferences of non-attending young women for alternative ways of delivering cervical screening. Design Postal discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted during the STRATEGIC study of interventions for increasing cervical screening uptake. Attributes included action required to arrange a test, location of the test, availability of a nurse navigator and cost to the NHS. Setting and participants Non-attending young women in two UK regions. Main outcome measures Responses were analysed using a mixed multinomial logit model. A predictive analysis identified the most preferable strategy compared to current screening. Preferences from the DCE were compared with women’s observed behaviours during the STRATEGIC trial. Results The DCE response rate was 5.5% (222/4000) and 94% of respondents agreed screening is important. Preference heterogeneity existed around all attributes with strong evidence for test location. Relative to current screening, unsolicited self-sampling kits for home use appeared most preferable. The STRATEGIC trial showed this same intervention to be most effective although many women who received it and were screened attended for conventional cytology instead. Conclusions The DCE and trial identified the unsolicited self-sampling kit as the most preferred / effective intervention. Data from the DCE suggested that the decision of some women receiving the kit in the trial to attend for conventional cytology may be due to anxieties around home testing coupled with a knowledge that ignoring the kit could potentially have life changing consequences. Keywords: cervical cancer; screening uptake; young women; preferences; discrete choice experiments; heterogeneity; United Kingdo

An observational study of Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation: DEVELOP-UK

Background: Many patients awaiting lung transplantation die before a donor organ becomes available. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows initially unusable donor lungs to be assessed and reconditioned for clinical use. Objective: The objective of the Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EVLP in increasing UK lung transplant activity. Design: A multicentre, unblinded, non-randomised, non-inferiority observational study to compare transplant outcomes between EVLP-assessed and standard donor lungs. Setting: Multicentre study involving all five UK officially designated NHS adult lung transplant centres. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced lung disease accepted onto the lung transplant waiting list. Intervention: The study intervention was EVLP assessment of donor lungs before determining suitability for transplantation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was survival during the first 12 months following lung transplantation. Secondary outcome measures were patient-centred outcomes that are influenced by the effectiveness of lung transplantation and that contribute to the health-care costs. Results: Lungs from 53 donors unsuitable for standard transplant were assessed with EVLP, of which 18 (34%) were subsequently transplanted. A total of 184 participants received standard donor lungs. Owing to the early closure of the study, a non-inferiority analysis was not conducted. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival at 12 months was 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.83] for the EVLP arm and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) for the standard arm. The hazard ratio for overall 12-month survival in the EVLP arm relative to the standard arm was 1.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 4.67). Patients in the EVLP arm required ventilation for a longer period and stayed longer in an intensive therapy unit (ITU) than patients in the standard arm, but duration of overall hospital stay was similar in both groups. There was a higher rate of very early grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in the EVLP arm, but rates of PGD did not differ between groups after 72 hours. The requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was higher in the EVLP arm (7/18, 38.8%) than in the standard arm (6/184, 3.2%). There were no major differences in rates of chest radiograph abnormalities, infection, lung function or rejection by 12 months. The cost of EVLP transplants is approximately £35,000 higher than the cost of standard transplants, as a result of the cost of the EVLP procedure, and the increased ECMO use and ITU stay. Predictors of cost were quality of life on joining the waiting list, type of transplant and number of lungs transplanted. An exploratory model comparing a NHS lung transplant service that includes EVLP and standard lung transplants with one including only standard lung transplants resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,000. Interviews showed that patients had a good understanding of the need for, and the processes of, EVLP. If EVLP can increase the number of usable donor lungs and reduce waiting, it is likely to be acceptable to those waiting for lung transplantation. Study limitations include small numbers in the EVLP arm, limiting analysis to descriptive statistics and the EVLP protocol change during the study. Conclusions: Overall, one-third of donor lungs subjected to EVLP were deemed suitable for transplant. Estimated survival over 12 months was lower than in the standard group, but the data were also consistent with no difference in survival between groups. Patients receiving these additional transplants experience a higher rate of early graft injury and need for unplanned ECMO support, at increased cost. The small number of participants in the EVLP arm because of early study termination limits the robustness of these conclusions. The reason for the increased PGD rates, high ECMO requirement and possible differences in lung injury between EVLP protocols needs evaluation

Quality of Care Provided in Two Scottish Rural Community Maternity Units: a retrospective case review.

Background: Women in Scotland with uncomplicated pregnancies are encouraged by professional bodies and national guidelines to access community based models of midwife-led care for their labour and birth. The evidence base for these guidelines relates to comparisons of predominantly urban birth settings in England. There appears to be little evidence available about the quality of the care during the antenatal, birth and post birth periods available for women within the Scottish Community Maternity Unit (CMU) model. The research aim was to explore the safety and effectiveness of the maternity services provided at two rural Community Maternity Units in Scotland, both 40 miles by main road access from a tertiary obstetric unit. Methods: Following appropriate NHS and University ethical approval, an anonymous retrospective review of consecutive maternity records for all women who accessed care at the CMUs over a 12 month period (June 2011 to May 2012) was undertaken in 2013 -14. Data was extracted using variables chosen to provide a description of the socio-demographics of the cohort and the process and outcomes of the care provided. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Regarding effectiveness, the correct care pathway was allocated to 97.5% of women, early access to antenatal care achieved by 95.7% of women, 94.8% of women at one CMU received continuity of carer and 78.6% of those clinically eligible accessed care in labour. 11.9% were appropriately transferred to obstetrician-led care antenatally and 16.9% were transferred in labour. All women received one-to one care in labour and 67.1% of babies born at the CMUs were breastfed at birth. Regarding safety, severe morbidity for women was rare, perineal trauma of 3rd degree tear occurred for 0.3% of women and 1.0% experienced an episiotomy. Severe post partum haemorrhage occurred for 0.3% of women. Babies admitted to the Neonatal unit were discharged within 48 hours. Conclusion: These findings support the recommendations of professional bodies and national guidelines. Maternity service provision at rural CMUs achieved a consistently high standard of safety and effectiveness when measured against national standards and international evidence

Evaluation of Health in Pregnancy grants in Scotland: a natural experiment using routine data

No abstract avialable

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Researc