Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19: a UK-wide qualitative interview study

Efficiency evaluation, regional technological heterogeneity and determinant of total factor productivity change in China's healthcare system

Enhancing efficiency and productivity in countries' healthcare systems is a global challenge. The Chinese government invested huge resources to improve the efficiency and productivity of the healthcare system across the country. To assess the success of the mission above, this research utilized DEA-SBM Meta frontier analysis alongside the Malmquist Productivity Index. These methodologies were employed to gauge Efficiency, production technology heterogeneity, and productivity of healthcare systems change across 31 mainland Chinese provinces and four distinct geographical regions throughout the study period spanning from 1997 to 2022. Results revealed that the mean efficiency score of China's healthcare system is 0.7672. It indicates a growth potential of 23.28 percent in the operational efficiency of healthcare systems. The eastern region's efficiency level (0.86917) is higher among all four regions. Zhejiang, Shandong, and Guangdong are the top three healthcare-efficiency performers. The technology gap ratio indicates that eastern regions witnessed a high TGR (0.9909), showing the country's attainment of superior healthcare technologies. Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Zhejiang witnessed higher TGR values among all 31 mainland Chinese provinces. The total factor productivity index of the healthcare system witnessed a slight growth of 0.33%, with an average MI score of 1.0033. Efficiency change (EC) was found to be the main determinant of TFPC as technology change TC is less than EC. Moreover, the MI score of the Western region (1.033) is higher than the corresponding Eastern, northeastern, and central regions. Guizhou, Anhui, and Yunnan were found to be the top three performers in TFPC growth. Finally, the Kruskal-Wallis test confirmed the statistically significant difference among 4 Chinese regions for the healthcare system's efficiency, TFPC, and TGR.

How is diagnostic uncertainty communicated and managed in real world primary care settings?

BACKGROUND

Managing diagnostic uncertainty is a major challenge in primary care due to factors such as the absence of definitive tests, variable symptom presentations and disease evolution. Maintaining patient trust during a period of investigative uncertainty, whilst minimising scope for diagnostic error is a challenge. Mismanagement can lead to diagnostic errors, treatment delays, and suboptimal patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore how UK primary care physicians (GPs) address and communicate diagnostic uncertainty in practice.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used video and audio-recordings. Verbatim transcripts were coded with a modified, validated tool to capture GPs' actions and communication in primary care consultations that included diagnostic uncertainty. The tool includes items relating to advice regarding new symptoms or symptom deterioration (sometimes called 'safety netting'). Video data was analysed to identify GP and patient body postures during and after the delivery of the management plan.

PARTICIPANTS

All patient participants had a consultation with a GP, were over the age of 50 and had (1) at least one new presenting problem or (2) one persistent problem that was undiagnosed.

APPROACH

Data collection occurred in GP-patient consultations during 2017-2018 across 7 practices in UK during 2017-2018.

KEY RESULTS

GPs used various management strategies to address diagnostic uncertainty, including (1) symptom monitoring without treatment, (2) prescribed treatment with symptom monitoring, and (3) addressing risks that could arise from administrative tasks. GPs did not make management plans for potential treatment side effects. Specificity of uncertainty management plans varied among GPs, with only some offering detailed actions and timescales. The transfer of responsibility for the management plan to patients was usually delivered rather than negotiated, with most patients confirming acceptance before concluding the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer guidance to healthcare professionals, improving awareness of using and communicating management plans for diagnostic uncertainty.

'I Do It All Alone': The Burdens and Benefits of Being Diagnosed With, and Treated for, Colorectal Cancer During the Covid-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically altered the way cancer care services were accessed and delivered, including for colorectal cancer (CRC). In the United Kingdom, patients were discouraged from presenting in primary care, many consultations took place remotely, investigative procedures and screening programmes were temporarily suspended, and fewer operations and treatments were delivered. People had to face the practical consequences of having cancer during a pandemic and navigate never before seen pathways, often alone. We examined the experience of being diagnosed and treated for CRC during the pandemic, and the implications of this on people's cancer journeys.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with people diagnosed with CRC during the Covid-19 pandemic (January 2020-May 2021), in the North East of England. An iterative topic guide was used during interviews, which took place remotely (telephone or Zoom), were audio recorded, pseudo-anonymised and transcribed. Initial transcripts were independently coded by two researchers, and a code 'bank' developed for application across transcripts. Development of themes and overarching analytical constructs was undertaken collaboratively by the research team.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 19 participants, analysed and four key themes identified: (1) The relative threats of Covid-19 and Cancer were not comparable, with cancer seen as posing a far greater risk than Covid-19; (2) Remote consultations were problematic, affecting patients' abilities to build rapport and trust with clinicians, assess nonverbal communication, and feel able to disclose, comprehend and retain information; (3) Stoma follow-up care was seen to be lacking, with long wait times for stoma reversal experienced by some; Finally, (4) Being alone during consultations negatively impacted some peoples' abilities to absorb information, and left them without the support of loved ones at an emotionally vulnerable time. However, some participants preferred being alone at certain points in their pathways, including receiving a diagnosis, and most frequently when receiving in-patient treatment.

CONCLUSION

Being alone brought unexpected benefits, absolving people from undertaking emotions work for others, and instead focus on their recovery, however, remote consultations negatively impacted patients' experiences. This study highlights the complex benefits and burdens of pandemic-located cancer journeys, including how these shifted at different points across cancer pathways.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Lorraine Angell, a cancer survivor, has been central to this study from idea conception, contributing to: development of study focus and design; securing funding; production of patient-facing materials; development of interview topic guides; analysis and interpretation of data; and drafting of key findings and manuscripts.

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer screening in a large organization with universal insurance before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Israel is regarded as a country with a developed economy and a moderate income inequality index. In this population-based study, we aimed to measure the inequalities in colorectal cancer screening within Clalit Health, an organization with universal insurance, before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

SETTING

Retrospective analysis within Clalit Health Services, Israel.

METHODS

We evaluated the rate of being up to date with screening (having a colonoscopy within 10 years or a fecal occult blood test within 1 year) and the colonoscopy completion rate (having a colonoscopy within 6 months of a positive fecal occult blood test) among subjects aged 50-75 in 2019-2021.

RESULTS

In 2019, out of 918,135 subjects, 61.3% were up to date with screening; high socioeconomic status: 65.9% (referent), medium-socioeconomic status: 60.1% (odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.82), low-socioeconomic status: 59.0% (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.75); Jews: 61.9% (referent), Arabs: 59.7% (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.90-0.92), Ultraorthodox-Jews: 51.7% (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.78). Out of 21,308 with a positive fecal occult blood test, the colonoscopy completion rate was 51.8%; high-socioeconomic status: 59.8% (referent), medium-socioeconomic status: 54.1% (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.86), low-socioeconomic status: 45.5% (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.65); Jews: 54.7% (referent), Ultraorthodox-Jews: 51.4% (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.90-0.92), Arabs: 44.7% (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.78). In 2020-2021, there was a slight drop in the rate of being up to date with screening, while most of the discrepancies were kept or slightly increased with time.

CONCLUSIONS

We report significant inequalities in colorectal cancer screening before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Israel, despite a declared policy of equality and universal insurance.

Inequality in uptake of bowel cancer screening by deprivation, ethnicity and smoking status: cross-sectional study in 86 850 citizens

BACKGROUND

Survival from colorectal cancer depends on stage at detection. In England, bowel cancer mortality has historically been highest in deprived areas. During the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was necessary to temporarily halt many screening programmes, which may have led to inequalities in uptake since screening restarted.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data from the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Systemwide Dataset were analyzed. Associations of baseline characteristics with uptake of bowel screening were examined using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Amongst 86 850 eligible adults aged 60-74 years, 5261 had no screening record. There was little evidence of association between no screening and sex (adjusted odds ratio 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90, 1.02)). Absence of screening record was associated with deprivation (1.26 (1.14, 1.40) for the most compared with the least deprived groups), smoking (1.11 (1.04, 1.18)) compared with no smoking record and black (1.36 (1.09, 1.70)) and mixed (1.08 (1.01, 1.15)) ethnicity compared with white ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a data set covering a whole NHS Integrated Care Board, there was evidence of lower uptake of bowel cancer screening in adults living in more deprived areas, of minority ethnic groups and who smoked. These findings may help focus community engagement work and inform research aimed at reducing inequalities.

The relationship between patient enablement and help-seeking in the context of blood cancer symptoms

OBJECTIVE

Approaches to improve earlier diagnosis of cancer often focus on symptom awareness as a key driver of help-seeking behaviour and other psychological influences are less well understood. This is the first study to explore the role of patient enablement on help-seeking for people experiencing potential blood cancer symptoms.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey was completed by 434 respondents (>18 years). Questions asked about symptom experiences, medical help-seeking and re-consultation. Existing patient enablement items were included in the newly developed Blood Cancer Awareness Measure. We collected data on patient socio-demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Of those responding to the survey 224/434 (51.6%) reported experiencing at least one potential blood cancer symptom. Half of those experiencing symptoms (112/224) had sought medical help. Results from logistic regression analysis showed that higher scores on patient enablement were associated with being less likely to seek help (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.89, Confidence Interval [CI] 0.81-0.98) after controlling for socio-demographics. Separate analyses showed that higher enablement was associated with being more comfortable to re-consult if symptoms didn't go away or got worse (OR 1.31, CI 1.16-1.48); after a test result suggested there was nothing to worry about, but symptoms persisted (OR 1.23, CI 1.12-1.34) or to request further tests, scans or investigations (OR 1.31, CI 1.19-1.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypotheses, patient enablement was associated with lower likelihood of help-seeking for potential blood cancer symptoms. Yet enablement appears to play an important role in likelihood of re-consulting when symptoms persist, get worse or need further investigation.

Diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer in Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

We examined the number of lung cancers diagnosed, the quality of care and the socio-economic and clinical characteristics among patients with lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years.

METHODS

We included all patients ≥ 18 years old diagnosed with lung cancer from 01 January 2018 to 31 August 2021 as registered in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry. Using a generalised linear model, we estimated prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the associations between the pandemic and socioeconomic and clinical factors, and indicators of quality.

RESULTS

We included 18,113 patients with lung cancer (82.0% non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)), which was similar to the preceding years, although a decline in NSCLC cases occurred during the first lockdown period in 2020. No difference in distribution of income or educational level was observed. No difference was observed in the quality of treatment - as measured by curative intent, proportion of patients resected or who died within 90 days of diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Using nationwide population-based data, our study reassuringly shows no adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, socio-economic characteristics nor quality of treatment of lung cancer, as compared to the preceding years.

The experience of patients with lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic and its importance for post-pandemic outpatient cancer care planning: A cross sectional study exploring the roles of age and frailty

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the care and experiences of people with cancer, but it presented an opportunity to improve the delivery of outpatient care post-pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an observational cross-sectional study with people with lung cancer throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey investigated patients' experiences and preferences regarding the delivery of cancer care to plan for post-pandemic care, as well as the pandemic's impact on their functional status (physical and psycho-social), exploring the role of age and frailty.

RESULTS

Amongst 282 eligible participants, 88%, 86%, and 59% of patients reported feeling appropriately supported during the pandemic by their cancer centre, friends/family, and primary care services, respectively. Remote oncology consultations were delivered to 90% of patients during the pandemic, of which 3% did not meet patients' expectations. Regarding post-pandemic outpatient care preferences, face-to-face appointments were preferred by 93% for the first appointment, by 64% when discussing imaging results, and by 60% for reviews during anti-cancer treatments. Older patients aged 70 years and above were more likely to favour face-to-face appointments (p = 0.007), regardless of their frailty status. Patient preferences changed over time, with the more recent participants preferring remote appointments during anti-cancer treatments (p = 0.0278). Regarding the pandemic's impact, abnormal levels of anxiety and depression were found in 16% and 17% of patients, respectively. Younger patients experienced higher abnormal levels of anxiety and depression (p = 0.036, p = 0.021). Amongst the older sub-group, those with frailty had higher levels of anxiety and depression (p < 0.001). Amongst all participants, 54% reported a considerable negative impact from the pandemic on different aspects of their daily life, particularly emotional and psychological health and sleep patterns, which were more marked in younger patients and the older sub-group with frailty. Older patients without frailty reported the least impact on their functional status.

DISCUSSION

There is a need for more personalised outpatient consultation options during cancer care. Whilst there is a preference for face-to-face consultations for older patients, following the pandemic there is a growing acceptance of remote consultations particularly during anti-cancer treatment. Older patients with lung cancer without frailty were less affected by the pandemic than those with frailty and younger patients, requiring less support from healthcare services.

Relationship between intersectionality and cancer inequalities: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Persistent inequalities in cancer care and cancer outcomes exist within and between countries. However, the evidence pertaining to the root causes driving cancer inequalities is mixed. This may be explained by the inadequate attention paid to experiences of patients with cancer living at the intersection of multiple social categories (eg, social class, ethnicity). This is supported by the intersectionality framework. This framework offers an alternative lens through which to analyse and understand how these interlocking systems of oppression uniquely shape the experiences of patients with cancer and drive inequalities. In this protocol, we outline a scoping review that will systematically map what is known about the relationship between intersectionality and inequalities in care experience and cancer outcomes of patients with cancer; and to determine how the intersectionality framework has been applied in studies across the cancer care pathway and across countries.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be guided by Arksey and O'Malley's, and Levac et al's frameworks for scoping reviews. We will identify and map the evidence on cancer inequalities and intersectionality from 1989 to present date. Electronic databases (EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, ProQuest) and a systematic search strategy using a combination of keywords and Boolean operators AND/OR will be used to identify relevant studies. Screening of eligible papers and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements resolved by discussion with the research team. We will use an iterative process to data charting using a piloted form. Findings will be collated into a narrative report.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required since data used are from publicly available secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and stakeholder meetings. Further, findings will inform the next phases of a multistage research project aimed at understanding inequalities among patients with breast cancer.

Patient experience and satisfaction with symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic adults. To date, there has been little research exploring experiences of FIT for this population.

AIM

To explore patient experience and satisfaction with FIT in an 'early adopter' site in England.

DESIGN

Explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach combining mailed quantitative surveys with semi-structured telephone interviews.

METHOD

Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to assess qualitative transcripts.

RESULTS

The survey had 260 responders, and it found that satisfaction with FIT was high (88.7%). Compared with test satisfaction, the proportion of responders satisfied with their GP consultation and how they received their results was lower (74.4% and 76.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that increased area-level deprivation and not receiving an explanation of the purpose of the test were associated with lower satisfaction with the GP consultation (both P-values <0.05), while increased area-level deprivation and not receiving results from the GP were associated with lower satisfaction with receiving results (both P-values <0.05). Interviews with responders (n = 20) helped explain the quantitative results. They revealed that 'not knowing the purpose of the test' caused 'anxiety' and 'confusion', which led to dissatisfaction. 'Not receiving results from GP' was considered 'unacceptable', as this left patients with a 'niggling doubt' and lack of diagnosis or assurance that they did not have cancer.

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction with symptomatic FIT is high. Efforts to improve satisfaction should focus on ensuring that patients understand the purpose of the test and always receive their test results.

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care.

METHODS

In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care.

RESULTS

Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care.

DISCUSSION

Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.