Attitudes towards the use and acceptance of eHealth technologies : a case study of older adults living with chronic pain and implications for rural healthcare

Acknowledgements The research described here is supported by the award made by the RCUK Digital Economy programme to the dot.rural Digital Economy Hub; award reference: EP/G066051/1. MC’s time writing the paper is funded by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) under Theme 8 ‘Vibrant Rural Communities’ of the Food, Land and People Programme (2011–2016). MC is also an Honorary Research Fellow at the Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen. The input of other members of the TOPS research team, Alastair Mort, Fiona Williams, Sophie Corbett, Phil Wilson and Paul MacNamee who contributed to be wider study and discussed preliminary findings reported here with the authors of the paper is acknowledged. We acknowledge the feedback on earlier versions of this paper provided by members of the Trans-Atlantic Rural Research Network, especially Stefanie Doebler and Carmen Hubbard. We also thank Deb Roberts for her comments.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

An Economic Evaluation Supported by Qualitative Data About the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) versus Standard Treatment Pathway in the Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.

Background The head and neck cancer (HNC) Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a condition-specific prompt list that allows patients to raise concerns to cancer consultants that otherwise might be overlooked. Objective This is the first economic evaluation of the PCI in patients with HNC investigating the costs and effects to the health service of not prioritising certain treatment pathways in addition to the primary cancer pathway. Additional costs can be accrued due to delayed referral to other appropriate services, e.g. hospital dentist. Economic evidence could influence future policy direction in this area globally. Methods Alongside a 3-year clustered randomised controlled trial, an economic evaluation was undertaken with Client Service Receipt Inventory data collected at three different time points (baseline and 6 and 12 months post-baseline). Patients were identified by a multidisciplinary team at the trial clinics. This economic analysis compared the PCI intervention versus the non-PCI treatment pathway. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the PCI versus non-PCI intervention treatment pathways. Qualitative data were also collected from seven consultants to triangulate findings from the economic evaluation. Results The analysis used data from 191 patients (66% of the full trial sample). The PCI inventory was low cost, at just over £13 per participant. The PCI intervention was cost effective and also cost saving, with an incremental cost difference of £295.91 over the 12-month follow-up period. The QALY values were higher in the PCI intervention strategy, with a value of 0.79, whereas the non-PCI group had a value of 0.76, thus the PCI intervention was dominant. The sensitivity analysis showed that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of being cost effective was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.83). Qualitative results showed that consultants using the PCI reported an enhanced awareness of patients’ overall post-treatment needs. Discussion The PCI provided an effective means to conduct clinical consultations by avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs and focussing on aspects of care most important to patients. The cost per QALY gain was within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline threshold. The economic evaluation showed that the PCI intervention strategy was dominant and therefore cost saving to the national health service (NHS) and was more effective in terms of treatment. Conclusion The PCI appears to be a low-cost intervention that generates a cost-effective benefit to patients from a NHS perspective if rolled out as part of routine care. Qualitative evidence has shown that the use of the PCI is supported by consultants in routine practice. Trial Registration Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT03086629

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the Patient Concerns Inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial

This trial is funded by the RfPB on behalf of the NIHR (PB-PG-0215-36047).Background: The consequences of treatment for Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients has profound detrimental impacts such as impaired QOL, emotional distress, delayed recovery and frequent use of healthcare. The aim of this trial is to determine if the routine use of the Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) package in review clinics during the first year following treatment can improve overall quality of life, reduce the social-emotional impact of cancer and reduce levels of distress. Furthermore, we aim to describe the economic costs and benefits of using the PCI. Methods: This will be a cluster preference randomised control trial with consultants either ‘using’ or ‘not using’ the PCI package at clinic. It will involve two centres Leeds and Liverpool. 416 eligible patients from at least 10 consultant clusters are required to show a clinically meaningful difference in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the percentage of participants with less than good overall quality of life at the final one-year clinic as measured by the University of Washington QOL questionnaire version 4 (UWQOLv4). Secondary outcomes at one-year are the mean social-emotional subscale (UWQOLv4) score, Distress Thermometer (DT) score ≥ 4, and key health economic measures (QALY-EQ-5D-5 L; CSRI). Discussion: This trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a consultation intervention package based around the PCI used at routine follow-up clinics following treatment of head and neck cancer with curative intent. If this intervention is (cost) effective for patients, the next step will be to promote wider use of this approach as standard care in clinical practice. Trial registration: 32,382. Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT03086629. Protocol: Version 3.0, 1st July 2017.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Patient-specific RF safety assessment in MRI: Progress in creating surface-based human head and shoulder models

The interaction of electromagnetic (EM) fields with the human body during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is complex and subject specific. MRI radiofrequency (RF) coil performance and safety assessment typically includes numerical EM simulations with a set of human body models. The dimensions of mesh elements used for discretization of the EM simulation domain must be adequate for correct representation of the MRI coil elements, different types of human tissue, and wires and electrodes of additional devices. Examples of such devices include those used during electroencephalography, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation, which record complementary information or manipulate brain states during MRI measurement. The electrical contact within and between tissues, as well as between an electrode and the skin, must also be preserved. These requirements can be fulfilled with anatomically correct surface-based human models and EM solvers based on unstructured meshes. Here, we report (i) our workflow used to generate the surface meshes of a head and torso model from the segmented AustinMan dataset, (ii) head and torso model mesh optimization for three-dimensional EM simulation in ANSYS HFSS, and (iii) several case studies of MRI RF coil performance and safety assessment

pp32 (ANP32A) Expression Inhibits Pancreatic Cancer Cell Growth and Induces Gemcitabine Resistance by Disrupting HuR Binding to mRNAs

The expression of protein phosphatase 32 (PP32, ANP32A) is low in poorly differentiated pancreatic cancers and is linked to the levels of HuR (ELAV1), a predictive marker for gemcitabine response. In pancreatic cancer cells, exogenous overexpression of pp32 inhibited cell growth, supporting its long-recognized role as a tumor suppressor in pancreatic cancer. In chemotherapeutic sensitivity screening assays, cells overexpressing pp32 were selectively resistant to the nucleoside analogs gemcitabine and cytarabine (ARA-C), but were sensitized to 5-fluorouracil; conversely, silencing pp32 in pancreatic cancer cells enhanced gemcitabine sensitivity. The cytoplasmic levels of pp32 increased after cancer cells are treated with certain stressors, including gemcitabine. pp32 overexpression reduced the association of HuR with the mRNA encoding the gemcitabine-metabolizing enzyme deoxycytidine kinase (dCK), causing a significant reduction in dCK protein levels. Similarly, ectopic pp32 expression caused a reduction in HuR binding of mRNAs encoding tumor-promoting proteins (e.g., VEGF and HuR), while silencing pp32 dramatically enhanced the binding of these mRNA targets. Low pp32 nuclear expression correlated with high-grade tumors and the presence of lymph node metastasis, as compared to patients' tumors with high nuclear pp32 expression. Although pp32 expression levels did not enhance the predictive power of cytoplasmic HuR status, nuclear pp32 levels and cytoplasmic HuR levels associated significantly in patient samples. Thus, we provide novel evidence that the tumor suppressor function of pp32 can be attributed to its ability to disrupt HuR binding to target mRNAs encoding key proteins for cancer cell survival and drug efficacy

Regulation of Pax6 by CTCF during Induction of Mouse ES Cell Differentiation

Pax6 plays an important role in embryonic cell (ES) differentiation during embryonic development. Expression of Pax6 undergoes from a low level to high levels following ES cell differentiation to neural stem cells, and then fades away in most of the differentiated cell types. There is a limited knowledge concerning how Pax6 is regulated in ES cell differentiation. We report that Pax6 expression in mouse ES cells was controlled by CCCTC binding factor (CTCF) through a promoter repression mechanism. Pax6 expression was significantly enhanced while CTCF activity was kept in the constant during ES cell differentiation to radial glial cells. Instead, the interaction of CTCF with Pax6 gene was regulated by decreased CTCF occupancy in its binding motifs upstream from Pax6 P0 promoter following the course of ES cell differentiation. Reduced occupancy of CTCF in the binding motif region upstream from the P0 promoter was due to increased DNA methylations in the CpG sites identified in the region. Furthermore, changes in DNA methylation levels in vitro and in vivo effectively altered methylation status of these identified CpG sites, which affected ability of CTCF to interact with the P0 promoter, resulting in increases in Pax6 expression. We conclude that there is an epigenetic mechanism involving regulations of Pax6 gene during ES cell differentiation to neural stem cells, which is through increases or decreases in methylation levels of Pax6 gene to effectively alter the ability of CTCF in control of Pax6 expression, respectively

Erratum to: Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

Erratum to: Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluatio