6 research outputs found

    Breast cancer in lesbians and bisexual women: Systematic review of incidence, prevalence and risk studies

    Get PDF
    This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. © 2013 Meads and Moore; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: The UK Parliamentary Enquiry and USA Institute of Medicine state that lesbians may be at a higher risk of breast cancer but there is insufficient information. Lesbians and bisexual (LB) women have behavioural risk-factors at higher rates compared to heterosexuals such as increased alcohol intake and higher stress levels. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women yet income levels in LB women are relatively low. This systematic review investigated all evidence on whether there is, or likely to be, higher rates of breast cancer in LB women. Methods: Cochrane library (CDSR, CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NHSEED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Web of Science (SCI, SSCI), SIGLE and Social Care Online databases were searched to October 2013. Unpublished research and specific lesbian, gay and bisexual websites were checked, as were citation lists of relevant papers. Included were studies in LB populations reporting breast cancer incidence or prevalence rates, risk model results or risk-factor estimates. Inclusions, data-extraction and quality assessment were by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Results: Searches found 198 references. No incidence rates were found. Nine studies gave prevalence estimates - two showed higher, four showed no differences, one showed mixed results depending on definitions, one had no comparison group and one gave no sample size. All studies were small with poor methodological and/or reporting quality. One incidence modelling study suggested a higher rate. Four risk modelling studies were found, one Rosner-Colditz and three Gail models. Three suggested higher and one lower rate in LB compared to heterosexual women. Six risk-factor estimates suggested higher risk and one no difference between LB and heterosexual women. Conclusions: The only realistic way to establish rates in LB women would be to collect sexual orientation within routine statistics, including cancer registry data, or from large cohort studies

    Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU). Methods: Questionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared. Results: Patients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p<0.001), radiotherapy (p<0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p=0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p<0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first year. Conclusions: PTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs

    Factors influencing job loss and early retirement in working men with prostate cancer—findings from the population-based Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To investigate factors associated with job loss and early retirement in men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) 18–42 months previously. Methods: Men ≤ 60 years at diagnosis who completed the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) survey were identified. Men who moved from employment at diagnosis to unemployment (EtoU) or retirement (EtoR) at survey (18–42 months post-diagnosis) were compared to men remaining in employment (EtoE). Sociodemographic, clinical and patient-reported factors were analysed in univariable and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 3218 men (81.4%) in the EtoE, 245 (6.2%) in EtoU and 450 (11.4%) in the EtoR groups. Men with stage IV disease (OR = 4.7 95% CI 3.1–7.0, relative to stage I/II) and reporting moderate/big bowel (OR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.6–3.9) or urinary problems (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.4–3.0) had greater odds of becoming unemployed. Other clinical (≥ 1 comorbidities, symptomatic at diagnosis) and sociodemographic (higher deprivation, divorced/separated), living in Scotland or Northern Ireland (NI)) factors were predictors of becoming unemployed. Men who were older, from NI, with stage IV disease and with caring responsibilities had greater odds of retiring early. Self-employed and non-white men had lesser odds of retiring early. Conclusion: PCa survivors who retire early following diagnosis do not report worse urinary or bowel problems compared to men remaining in employment. However, we identified clinical and sociodemographic factors which increased unemployment risk in PCa survivors. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Targeted support and engagement with PCa survivors at risk of unemployment, including their families and employers, is needed

    Economic evaluation of lifestyle interventions to treat overweight or obesity in children

    No full text
    To estimate lifetime cost effectiveness of lifestyle interventions to treat overweight and obese children, from the UK National Health Service perspective.An adaptation of the National Heart Forum economic model to predict lifetime health service costs and outcomes of lifestyle interventions on obesity-related diseases.Hospital or community-based weight-management programmes.Hypothetical cohorts of overweight or obese children based on body mass data from the National Child Measurement Programme.Lifestyle interventions that have been compared with no or minimal intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Reduction in body mass index (BMI) standard deviation score (SDS), intervention resources/costs, lifetime treatment costs, obesity-related diseases and cost per life year gained.Ten RCTs were identified by our search strategy. The median effect of interventions versus control from these 10 RCTs was a difference in BMI SDS of -0.13 at 12 months, but the range in effects among interventions was broad (0.04 to -0.60). Indicative costs per child of these interventions ranged from £108 to £662. For obese children aged 10-11 years, an intervention that resulted in a median reduction in BMI SDS at 12 months at a moderate cost of £400 increased life expectancy by 0.19 years and intervention costs were offset by subsequent undiscounted savings in treatment costs (net saving of £110 per child), though this saving did not emerge until the sixth or seventh decade of life. The discounted cost per life year gained was £13 589. Results were broadly similar for interventions aimed at children aged 4-5 years and which targeted both obese and overweight children. For more costly interventions, savings were less likely.Interventions to treat childhood obesity are potentially cost effective although cost savings and health benefits may not appear until the sixth or seventh decade of life.W Hollingworth, J Hawkins, D A Lawlor, M Brown, T Marsh and R R Kippin
    corecore