Conectar
Detecting cancer earlier improves treatment options and long-term survival. A multicancer early detection test that reliably picks up early-stage cancer would potentially save lives and reduce the cost of treating cancer. One promising candidate is the Enlighten test, which applies machine learning to plasma amino acid concentrations to detect cancer. In a cohort of 77 patients recently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, pancreatic or prostate cancer, 60 (78%) were detected by the test (sensitivity), with no false positives in 20 healthy controls. The MODERNISED study will further develop the Enlighten test to detect 10 different cancers by adding bladder, lung, melanoma, oesophageal, ovarian and renal cancer to the test.
MODERNISED (ISRCTN17299125) is a multicentre prospective, non-interventional, case–control study. We aim to recruit 1000 adult participants with a recent cancer diagnosis, 250 adult participants with symptoms of cancer where a cancer diagnosis was ruled out by the National Health Service (NHS) standard of care and 100 healthy adult volunteers. Cancer tissue of origin (ToO) will include bladder, breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, oesophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate and renal. Participants in the two non-cancer cohorts who are later diagnosed with cancer will be moved to the cancer cases cohort. The primary aim is to train and validate a machine learning algorithm to detect cancer, which will be evaluated by AUROC. Secondary aims include training and validating an algorithm to predict ToO and stage of cancer, exploring differences in performance by demographics and estimating how sensitivity varies across specificity cut-offs of 95%, 99% and 99.9%. These results will provide a statistically powered estimate of how well the Enlighten test can discriminate between individuals with and without cancer, which can then be validated for clinical use in further research.
This study is sponsored by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and has been approved by the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research West Midlands (24/WM/0234). Results will be presented at scientific meetings and published in international peer-reviewed journals. Lay summaries of study progress and findings will be published on the Southampton Clinical Trial Unit’s website.
Physical activity is crucial for young children’s health and development. Many young children do not meet the recommended 3 hours of daily physical activity, including 60 min of energetic play. Early childhood education and care (ECEC/childcare) is a key setting to intervene to improve children’s physical activity. The Play Active programme is a scalable evidence-informed ECEC-specific physical activity policy intervention with implementation support strategies to improve educators’ physical activity-related practices.
This hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial will use a quasi-experimental repeated measures design to assess the real-world effectiveness of Play Active’s scalable implementation support strategies in helping ECEC services adopt the practices included in the Play Active policy. Secondary aims will examine changes in educator-reported and device-measured children’s physical activity; assess the sustainability of the programme; identify effective dissemination strategies; assess cost-effectiveness; and involve comprehensive process evaluation. All ECEC services in Western Australia (n=776), Queensland (n=1744) and South Australia (n=445) will be invited to participate. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 months.
Ethics approval has been provided by The University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (2023/ET000187), the University of Queensland HREC (2024/HE000076) and the University of South Australia HREC (206023). This real-world trial of Play Active is vital for understanding its implementation in practice and to generate evidence for further scale-up and roll-out nationally. Key findings will be disseminated to stakeholders, collaborators, policy-makers as well as families and practitioners in the ECEC sector.
ACTRN12624000406505.
To develop an in-depth understanding of peoples' perceptions and experiences of decision-making and reasons why they declined the opportunity of a kidney transplant.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour informed the qualitative interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2022 and June 2023 with thirty adults in the United Kingdom who had declined a kidney transplant. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Deciding against having a kidney transplant for the majority of people was a concrete decision. Multiple reasons transcended four cross cutting themes: The impact of negative past experiences on kidney transplant decision-making, Negative attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions towards kidney transplantation, Preferred not to have a kidney transplant, and Perceived benefits of deciding against a kidney transplant. Earlier negative experiences culminated in mistrust. People feared kidney transplant failure and were not willing to take the risk of being worse off. Some people perceived they were too old and preferred younger people to be offered available kidneys. COVID-19 negatively impacted some people's decisions.
Despite people's decisions being perceived as at odds with healthcare professionals and current policies to increase transplantation rates, overall, the decision not to have a kidney transplant appeared carefully thought through.
People's choices were informed, multifaceted and shaped by personal experiences, perceived risks and individual values. Recognising these factors is essential in improving patient-centred care and shared decision-making. Nurse-led patient education needs to carefully balance promoting kidney transplant as the preferred kidney replacement treatment option.
The findings contribute new understanding and theory as to why people living with kidney failure decide against having a kidney transplant. Perceived benefits of not having a transplant outweighed potential advantages, and patients exercised their legal right to make an informed decision.
COREQ and SRQR.
People living with kidney disease were involved from the outset; their contributions included prioritising the research question, shaping the study design, commenting on participant documents, analysing, interpreting findings and dissemination.
Nurses routinely perform multiple risk assessments related to patient mobility in the hospital. Use of a single mobility assessment for multiple risk assessment tools could improve clinical documentation efficiency, accuracy and lay the groundwork for automated risk evaluation tools.
We tested how accurately Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) mobility scores predicted the mobility components of various fall and pressure injury risk assessment tools.
AM-PAC scores along with mobility and physical activity components on risk assessments (Braden Scale, Get Up and Go used within the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model®, Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) and Morse Fall Scale) were collected on a cohort of hospitalised patients. We predicted scores of risk assessments based on AM-PAC scores by fitting of ordinal logistic regressions between AM-PAC scores and risk assessments. STROBE checklist was used to report the present study.
AM-PAC scores predicted the observed mobility components of Braden, Get Up and Go and JHFRAT with high accuracy (≥85%), but with lower accuracy for the Morse Fall Scale (40%).
These findings suggest that a single mobility assessment has the potential to be a good solution for the mobility components of several fall and pressure injury risk assessments.
FreshRSS