Social disparities in the use of colonoscopy by primary care physicians in Ontario

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is unclear if all persons in Ontario have equal access to colonoscopy. This research was designed to describe long-term trends in the use of colonoscopy by primary care physicians (PCPs) in Ontario, and to determine whether PCP characteristics influence the use of colonoscopy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a population-based retrospective study of PCPs in Ontario between the years 1996-2005. Using administrative data we identified a screen-eligible group of patients aged 50-74 years in Ontario. These patients were linked to the PCP who provided the most continuous care to them during each year. We determined the use of any colonoscopy among these patients. We calculated the rate of colonoscopy for each PCP as the number of patients undergoing colonoscopies per 100 screen eligible patients. Negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with the rate of colonoscopy, using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of patients within PCPs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Between 7,955 and 8,419 PCPs in Ontario per year (median age 43 years) had at least 10 eligible patients in their practices. The use of colonoscopy by PCPs increased sharply in Ontario during the study period, from a median rate of 1.51 [inter quartile range (IQR) 0.57-2.62] per 100 screen eligible patients in 1996 to 4.71 (IQR 2.70-7.53) in 2005. There was substantial variation between PCPs in their use of colonoscopy. PCPs who were Canadian medical graduates and with more years of experience were more likely to use colonoscopy after adjusting for their patient characteristics. PCPs were more likely to use colonoscopy if their patient populations were predominantly women, older, had more illnesses, and if their patients resided in less marginalized neighborhoods (lower unemployment, fewer immigrants, higher income, higher education, and higher English/French fluency).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is substantial variation in the use of colonoscopy by PCPs, and this variation has increased as the overall use of colonoscopy increased over time. PCPs whose patients were more marginalized were less likely to use colonoscopy, suggesting that there are inequities in access.</p

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact

User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a serious and growing health problem in Canada. Colonoscopy is used for screening and diagnosis of symptomatic or high CRC risk individuals. Although a number of countries are now implementing quality colonoscopy services, knowledge synthesis of barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare professionals and patients during implementation has not been carried out. In addition, the perspectives of various stakeholders towards the implementation of quality colonoscopy services and the need of an efficient organisation of such services have been reported in the literature but have not been synthesised yet. The present study aims to produce a comprehensive synthesis of actual knowledge on the barriers and facilitators perceived by all stakeholders to the implementation of quality colonoscopy services in Canada.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>First, we will conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and other published documentation on the barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services. Standardised literature searches and data extraction methods will be used. The quality of the studies and their relevance to informing decisions on colonoscopy services implementation will be assessed. For each group of users identified, barriers and facilitators will be categorised and compiled using narrative synthesis and meta-analytical techniques. The principle factors identified for each group of users will then be validated for its applicability to various Canadian contexts using the Delphi study method. Following this study, a set of strategies will be identified to inform decision makers involved in the implementation of quality colonoscopy services across Canadian jurisdictions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will be the first to systematically summarise the barriers and facilitators to implementation of quality colonoscopy services perceived by different groups and to consider the local contexts in order to ensure the applicability of this knowledge to the particular realities of various Canadian jurisdictions. Linkages with strategic partners and decision makers in the realisation of this project will favour the utilisation of its results to support strategies for implementing quality colonoscopy services and CRC screening programs in the Canadian health system.</p

Hepatitis Vaccination of Men Who Have Sex with Men at Gay Pride Events

Prevention researchers have advocated primary prevention such as vaccination in alternative venues. However, there have been major questions about both the attendance of, and the ability to, vaccinate high-risk individuals in such settings. The current study seeks to assess the feasibility of vaccinating high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM) at Gay Pride events. The research questions are: Do gay men who are sampled at Gay Pride events engage in more or less risky behavior than gay men sampled at other venues? Do the gay men who receive hepatitis vaccinations at Gay Pride engage in more or less risky behavior than gay men at Gay Pride who do not receive hepatitis vaccination? Of the 3689 MSM that completed the Field Risk Assessment (FRA), 1095/3689 = 29.68% were recruited at either the 2006 or 2007 Long Beach, California Gay Pride events. The remaining, 2594/3689 = 70.32% were recruited at Long Beach gay bars, gay community organizations and institutions, and through street recruitment in various gay enclaves in the Long Beach area. Logistic regression analysis yielded eight factors that were associated with non-attendance of Gay Pride: Age, had sex while high in the last 12 months, had unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the last 12 months, had sex for drugs/money in the last 12 months, been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the last 12 months, used nitrites (poppers) in the last 12 months, and used methamphetamine in the last 12 months. Identifying as White, Asian, or African American compared to Hispanic was also associated with non-attendance. Bivariate analysis indicated that, of the MSM sampled at Gay Pride, 280/1095 = 25.57% received a hepatitis vaccination there. The MSM sampled at Gay Pride who reported engaging in UAI or having used any stimulant (cocaine, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamine) in the last 12 months were more likely to receive hepatitis vaccination on-site. The results provide evidence for the viability of successfully vaccinating high-risk MSM at Gay Pride events. However, it is vital that no-cost vaccinations are also funded in other community settings such as STI clinics, drug treatment programs, prisons, universities, and other community resource centers in order to reach those additional high-risk MSM who do not attend Gay Pride

Pulsed radiofrequency treatment in interventional pain management: mechanisms and potential indications—a review

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF) treatment in chronic pain management in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and well-designed observational studies. The physics, mechanisms of action, and biological effects are discussed to provide the scientific basis for this promising modality. METHODS: We systematically searched for clinical studies on PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE database, using the free text terms: pulsed radiofrequency, radio frequency, radiation, isothermal radiofrequency, and combination of these. We classified the information in two tables, one focusing only on RCTs, and another, containing prospective studies. Date of last electronic search was 30 May 2010. The methodological quality of the presented reports was scored using the original criteria proposed by Jadad et al. FINDINGS: We found six RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF, one against corticosteroid injection, one against sham intervention, and the rest against conventional RF thermocoagulation. Two trials were conducted in patients with lower back pain due to lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain, one in cervical radicular pain, one in lumbosacral radicular pain, one in trigeminal neuralgia, and another in chronic shoulder pain. CONCLUSION: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regards to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the methodological quality of the included study. PRF application to the supracapular nerve was found to be as efficacious as intra-articular corticosteroid in patients with chronic shoulder pain. The use of PRF in lumbar facet arthropathy and trigeminal neuralgia was found to be less effective than conventional RF thermocoagulation techniques

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis