A systematic review of geographical variation in access to chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Rising cancer incidence, the cost of cancer pharmaceuticals and the introduction of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England, but not other United Kingdom(UK) countries means evidence of ‘postcode prescribing’ in cancer is important. There have been no systematic reviews considering access to cancer drugs by geographical characteristics in the UK. METHODS: Studies describing receipt of cancer drugs, according to healthcare boundaries (e.g. cancer network [UK]) were identified through a systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature. Due to study heterogeneity a meta-analysis was not possible and a narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: 8,780 unique studies were identified and twenty-six included following a systematic search last updated in 2015. The majority of papers demonstrated substantial variability in the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy between hospitals, health authorities, cancer networks and UK countries (England and Wales). After case-mix adjustment, there was up to a 4–5 fold difference in chemotherapy utilisation between the highest and lowest prescribing cancer networks. There was no strong evidence that rurality or distance travelled were associated with the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy and conflicting evidence for an effect of travel time. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation in chemotherapy prescribing between healthcare boundaries has been identified. The absence of associations with natural geographical characteristics (e.g. rurality) and receipt of chemotherapy suggests that local treatment habits, capacity and policy are more influential. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-2026-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Socioeconomic deprivation and barriers to live-donor kidney transplantation: a qualitative study of deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES: Socioeconomically deprived individuals with renal disease are less likely to receive a live-donor kidney transplant than less-deprived individuals. This qualitative study aimed to identify reasons for the observed socioeconomic disparity in live-donor kidney transplantation. DESIGN: A qualitative study using face-to-face in-depth semistructured interviews. SETTING: A UK tertiary renal referral hospital and transplant centre. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to select deceased-donor transplant recipients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation (SED) (19 participants), followed by a low SED comparison group (13 participants), aiming for maximum diversity in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, primary renal disease and previous renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Participants were interviewed following their routine transplant clinic review. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software and analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory. RESULTS: Themes common and distinct to each socioeconomic group emerged. 6 themes appeared to distinguish between individuals from areas of high and low SED. 4 themes were distinct to participants from areas of high SED: (1) Passivity, (2) Disempowerment, (3) Lack of social support and (4) Short-term focus. 2 themes were distinct to the low SED group: (1) Financial concerns and (2) Location of donor. CONCLUSIONS: Several of the emerging themes from the high SED individuals relate to an individual's lack of confidence and skill in managing their health and healthcare; themes that are in keeping with low levels of patient activation. Inadequate empowerment of socioeconomically deprived individuals by healthcare practitioners was also described. Financial concerns did not emerge as a barrier from interviews with the high SED group. Interventions aiming to redress the observed socioeconomic inequity should be targeted at both patients and clinical teams to increase empowerment and ensure shared decision-making

Patients’ experiences of life after bariatric surgery and follow-up care:A qualitative study

ObjectivesBariatric surgery is the most clinically effective treatment for people with severe and complex obesity, however, the psychosocial outcomes are less clear. Follow-up care after bariatric surgery is known to be important, but limited guidance exists on what this should entail, particularly related to psychological and social well-being. Patients’ perspectives are valuable to inform the design of follow-up care. This study investigated patients’ experiences of life after bariatric surgery including important aspects of follow-up care, in the long term.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured individual interviews. A constant comparative approach was used to code data and identify themes and overarching concepts.SettingBariatric surgery units of two publicly funded hospitals in the South of England.ParticipantsSeventeen adults (10 women) who underwent a primary operation for obesity (mean time since surgery 3.11 years, range 4 months to 9 years), including Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric band and sleeve gastrectomy, agreed to participate in the interviews.ResultsExperiences of adapting to life following surgery were characterised by the concepts of ‘normality’ and ‘ambivalence’, while experiences of ‘abandonment’ and ‘isolation’ dominated participants’ experiences of follow-up care. Patients highlighted the need for more flexible, longer-term follow-up care that addresses social and psychological difficulties postsurgery and integrates peer support.ConclusionsThis research highlights unmet patient need for more accessible and holistic follow-up care that addresses the long-term multidimensional impact of bariatric surgery. Future research should investigate effective and acceptable follow-up care packages for patients undergoing bariatric surgery

Equity of access to treatment on the Cancer Drugs Fund:A missed opportunity for cancer research?

AbstractUsing mixed-methods, we investigated the CDF in the South West of England (3193 cancer patients treated through the CDF, April 1st 2011–March 31st 2013) for evidence of: (1) equitable access across socioeconomic groups, age groups, sex, and Cancer Network; (2) time-to-treatment by socioeconomic group; and (3) the perception of the CDF as fair, using semi-structured interviews with oncology consultants.There was no evidence of inequitable access to anti-cancer therapy for those in more deprived areas. For all cancer types, there was a lower proportion of women in the CDF cohort than in the Cancer Registry reference population (e.g., melanoma, CDF 36.8% female, reference population 48.7%; difference 11.9%, 95% CI 3.1–20.7%). There was a lower proportion of older patients in the CDF compared with the reference population (e.g., colorectal cancer, CDF 6.9% ≥80 years, reference population 30.1%; difference 23.2%, 95% CI 20.2–26.2%). Interviewed oncologists felt differences in performance status, not age, influenced referral to the CDF, with neither deprivation, nor gender contributing.Our study suggests that the CDF has differential access by age and sex, but not by deprivation. The absence of high quality CDF data represents a missed opportunity to fully evaluate equity of access and the real-world costs and outcomes of novel anti-cancer drugs

Better the donor you know?:A qualitative study of renal patients' views on ‘altruistic’ live-donor kidney transplantation

AbstractBackgroundIn the UK there is a short-fall between individuals requiring a renal transplant and kidneys available for transplantation. Non-directed ‘altruistic’ living kidney donation has emerged as a strategy for bridging this gap between supply and demand, with the number increasing each year.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the views of potential recipients towards non-directed ‘altruistic’ live-donor kidney transplantation.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with 32 UK deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients were performed. Interviews explored willingness to consider directed and non-directed live-donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory.ResultsFor those not willing to accept a non-directed ‘altruistic’ LDKT, the following themes were identified: i) Prioritising other recipients above self; ii) Fear of acquiring an unknown donor's characteristics, and iii) Concern for the donor – unnecessary risk. For those willing to accept a non-directed ‘altruistic’ LDKT the following themes were identified: iv) Prioritising known above unknown persons, v) Belief that they are as deserving as other potential recipients, and vi) Advantages of a LDKT.ConclusionsDrawing on ‘gift exchange theory’, this study contributes to our understanding of the experience of the intended recipient of a gift. The anonymity of the donor-recipient appears to be seen as a benefit of non-directed ‘altruistic’ live-donor transplants, freeing recipients from the obligations of the gift. However, those who feel unworthy of the ‘gifted transplant’ are concerned about the donor and by the lack of opportunity for direct reciprocity. Highlighting the ‘reciprocal benefits’ reported by donors may allow individuals whose preference is a live-donor transplant to accept one if offered. These insights provide the transplant community with targets for intervention, through which the concerns of potential recipients might be addressed