Evaluation of a mobile screening service for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Broken Hill, a remote regional centre in far western NSW

Introducing mobile fracture prevention services with DXA in Northern Scotland: a comparative study of three rural communities

Mobile fracture prevention services, with DXA, significantly improved access to care for those at high risk of fracture living in rural areas. Introduction of mobile services facilitated access to fracture liaison services and development of integrated of care pathways across community- and secondary-based care.

INTRODUCTION

The ageing population is growing faster in rural areas, yet most fracture prevention services are located in urban areas. As part of a wider study, evaluating the introduction of mobile fracture prevention services, we focus on whether mobile services improve access to care for those at highest risk of fracture.

METHODS

Services outcomes were assessed against the Royal Osteoporosis Society clinical standards for fracture liaison services. This included standardised, age-specific referral rates, FRAX 10-year probability of major osteoporotic and hip fracture of referrals, pre- and post-introduction of the mobile service across two island and one rural mainland sites. This was compared with referrals from a similar rural mainland region with local access to a comprehensive service.

RESULTS

Greatest impact occurred in areas with most limited service provision at baseline. Mean age of patients referred increased from 59 to 68 years (CI 6.8-10.1, p < 0.001). Referral rates increased from 2.8 to 5.4 per 1000 population between 2011 and 2018, with a 5-fold rise in those ≥ 75 years (0.4 to 2.0 per 1000). Mean FRAX 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture increased from 12.7 to 17.7% (CI 3.2-5.7, p < 0.001). Mean hip fracture risk probability increased from 3.0 to 5.7% (CI 2.0-3.4, p < 0.001). However, referral rates from the mobile sites remained lower than the comparator site.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile fracture prevention services, including DXA, greatly improved uptake amongst high-risk individuals. Mobile services facilitated development of integrated of care pathways, including fracture liaison services, across community- and secondary-based care.

Reasons for non-participation in population-based abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Background

A population-based screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) started in 2010 in Stockholm County, Sweden. This present study used individual data from Sweden's extensive healthcare registries to identify the reasons for non-participation in the AAA screening programme.

Methods

All 65-year-old men in Stockholm are invited to screening for AAA; this study included all men invited from July 2010 to July 2012. Participants and non-participants were compared for socioeconomic factors, travel distance to the examination centre and healthcare use. The influence of these factors on participation was analysed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

The participation rate for AAA screening was 77·6 per cent (18 876 of 24 319 men invited). The prevalence of AAA (aortic diameter more than 2·9 cm) among participants was 1·4 per cent. The most important reasons for non-participation in the multivariable regression analyses were: recent immigration (within 5 years) (odds ratio (OR) 3·25, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·94 to 5·47), low income (OR 2·76, 2·46 to 3·10), marital status single or divorced (OR 2·23, 2·08 to 2·39), low level of education (OR 1·28, 1·16 to 1·40) and long travel distance (OR 1·23, 1·10 to 1·37). Non-participants had a higher incidence of stroke (4·5 versus 2·8 per cent; P &lt; 0·001) and chronic pulmonary disease (2·9 versus 1·3 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). Daily smoking was more common in residential areas where the participation rate for AAA screening was low.

Conclusion

Efforts to improve participation in AAA screening should target the groups with low income, a low level of education and immigrants. The higher morbidity in the non-participant group, together with a higher rate of smoking, make it probable that this group also has a high risk of AAA.

Reproducibility of ultrasound measurement of the abdominal aorta

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening and surveillance programmes use ultrasound imaging to measure the anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the infrarenal aorta. The aim of this study was to examine potential observer bias and variability in ultrasound measurements.

METHODS

Studies were identified for review via a MEDLINE database search (1966-2009). References supplied in accessed papers were also checked for potential relevance. Consistent search terminology, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to ensure quality of data. Nine papers were available to review.

RESULTS

Variation in intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility was identified. Six studies reported intraobserver repeatability coefficients for AP aortic diameter measurements of 1·6-4·4 mm. These were below the 5-mm level regarded as acceptable by the UK and USA AAA screening programmes. Five studies had interobserver reproducibility below the level of 5 mm. Four studies, however, reported poor reproducibility (range from -2 to +5·2 to -10·5 to +10·4); these differences may have had a significant clinical impact on screening and surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The studies used different methodologies with no standardized measurement techniques. Measurements were taken by observers from different medical disciplines of varying grade and levels of training. Standard training and formal quality assurance of ultrasound measurements are important components of an effective AAA screening programme.