Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-3 (3)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot 
Gut  2011;61(1):101-107.
To compare performance measures across all three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening faecal occult blood test pilot and their relation to social deprivation and ethnicity.
In each round in three primary care trusts, data for a restricted population of over 48 500 aged 60–69 years were analysed. Individual-based data included postcode linked to area-based data on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2004, and ethnicity. Outcomes were the rates of screening and colonoscopy uptake, positivity and detection of neoplasia (adenomas or bowel cancer) and bowel cancer, and the positive predictive values (PPVs) of a positive test for neoplasia and bowel cancer. Sensitivity was calculated by the proportional incidence method using data on interval cancers identified from cancer registrations.
The overall uptake rate was 61.8%, 57.0% and 58.7% in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. Although the PPV for cancer decreased over the course of the three rounds (10.9% in the 1st round, 6.5% in 3rd round), the PPV for all neoplasia remained relatively constant (42.6% in 1st round, 36.9% in 3rd round). Deprivation and non-white ethnic background (principally Indian subcontinent in the pilot region) were associated with low screening and colonoscopy uptake rates, and this changed little over the three screening rounds. Uptake was lower in men, although differences in uptake between men and women decreased over time. Non-participation in previous rounds was a strong predictor of low uptake.
Performance measures are commensurate with expectations in a screening programme reaching its third round of screening, but a substantial ongoing effort is needed, particularly to address the effects of deprivation and ethnicity in relation to uptake.
PMCID: PMC3230830  PMID: 21561880
Colorectal cancer; screening
2.  General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial 
British Journal of Cancer  2006;94(8):1116-1121.
This trial examined the optimal setting for follow-up of patients after treatment for colon cancer by either general practitioners or surgeons. In all, 203 consenting patients who had undergone potentially curative treatment for colon cancer were randomised to follow-up by general practitioners or surgeons. Follow-up guidance recommended three monthly clinical review and annual faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) and were identical in both study arms. Primary outcome measures (measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months were (1) quality of life, SF-12; physical and mental component scores, (2) anxiety and depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (3) patient satisfaction: Patient Visit-Specific Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) were: investigations, number and timing of recurrences and deaths. In all, 170 patients were available for follow-up at 12 months and 157 at 24 months. At 12 and 24 months there were no differences in scores for quality of life (physical component score, P=0.88 at 12 months; P=0.28 at 24 months: mental component score, P=0.51, P=0.47; adjusted), anxiety (P=0.72; P=0.11) depression (P=0.28; P=0.80) or patient satisfaction (P=0.06, 24 months). General practitioners ordered more FOBTs than surgeons (rate ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.4–4.4), whereas more colonoscopies (rate ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–1.0), and ultrasounds (rate ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–1.0) were undertaken in the surgeon-led group. Results suggest similar recurrence, time to detection and death rates in each group. Colon cancer patients with follow-up led by surgeons or general practitioners experience similar outcomes, although patterns of investigation vary.
PMCID: PMC2361245  PMID: 16622437
colon cancer; follow-up; general practice; surgery; investigations; quality of life
3.  A framework for effective management of change in clinical practice: dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines 
Quality in Health Care : QHC  1999;8(3):177-183.
Theories from social and behavioural science can make an important contribution to the process of developing a conceptual framework for improving use of clinical practice guidelines and clinician performance. A conceptual framework for guideline dissemination and implementation is presented which draws on relevant concepts from diffusion of innovation theory, the transtheoretical model of behaviour change, health education theory, social influence theory, and social ecology, as well as evidence from systematic literature reviews on the effectiveness of various behaviour change strategies. The framework emphasises the need for pre-implementation assessment of (a) readiness of clinicians to adopt guidelines into practice, (b) barriers to change as experienced by clinicians, and (c) the level at which interventions should be targeted. It also incorporates the need for multifaceted interventions, identifies the type of barriers which will be addressed by each strategy, and develops the concept of progression through stages of guideline adoption by clinicians, with the use of appropriately targeted support strategies. The potential value of the model is that it may enable those involved in the process of guideline dissemination and implementation to direct strategies to target groups more effectively. Clearly, the effectiveness and utility of the model in facilitating guideline dissemination and implementation requires validation by further empirical research. Until such research is available, it provides a theoretical framework that may assist in the selection of appropriate guideline dissemination and implementation strategies.
PMCID: PMC2483658  PMID: 10847875

Results 1-3 (3)