Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty.

Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019.

596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment.

1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care.

Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up.

55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p

The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both.

ISRCTN21333761.

Estimate the incremental costs and benefits of scaling up hypertension care in adults in 24 select countries, using three different systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment cut-off points—≥140, ≥150 and ≥160 mm Hg.

Strengthening the hypertension care cascade compared with status quo levels, with pharmacological treatment administered at different cut-points depending on the scenario.

Adults aged 30+ in 24 low-income and middle-income countries spanning all world regions.

Societal.

30 years.

4%.

2020 USD.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s Epi Visualisations database—country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence, prevalence and death rates. Mean SBP and prevalence—National surveys and NCD-RisC. Treatment protocols—WHO HEARTS. Treatment impact—academic literature. Costs—national and international databases.

Health outcomes—averted stroke and myocardial infarction events, deaths and disability-adjusted life-years; economic outcomes—averted health expenditures, value of averted mortality and workplace productivity losses.

Across 24 countries, over 30 years, incremental scale-up of hypertension care for adults with SBP≥140 mm Hg led to 2.6 million averted CVD events and 1.2 million averted deaths (7% of expected CVD deaths). 68% of benefits resulted from treating those with very high SBP (≥160 mm Hg). 10 of the 12 highest-income countries projected positive net benefits at one or more treatment cut-points, compared with 3 of the 12 lowest-income countries. Treating hypertension at SBP≥160 mm Hg maximised the net economic benefit in the lowest-income countries.

The model only included a few hypertension-attributable diseases and did not account for comorbid risk factors. Modelled scenarios assumed ambitious progress on strengthening the care cascade.

In areas where economic considerations might play an outsized role, such as very low-income countries, prioritising treatment to populations with severe hypertension can maximise benefits net of economic costs.

Long-term benzodiazepine use is common despite known risks. In the original Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) Study set in Canada, patient education led to increased rates of benzodiazepine cessation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of implementing an adapted EMPOWER quality improvement (QI) initiative in a US-based healthcare system.

We used a pre–post design with a non-randomised control group.

A network of primary care clinics.

Patients with ≥60 days’ supply of benzodiazepines in 6 months and ≥1 risk factor (≥65 years of age, a concurrent high-risk medication prescribed or a diazepam equivalent daily dose ≥10) were eligible.

In March 2022, we engaged 22 primary care physicians (PCPs), and 308 of their patients were mailed an educational brochure, physician letter and flyer detailing benzodiazepine risks; the control group included 4 PCPs and 291 of their patients.

The primary measure was benzodiazepine cessation by 9 months. We used logistic regression and a generalised estimating equations approach to control for clustering by PCP, adjusting for demographics, frailty, number of risk factors, and diagnoses of arthritis, depression, diabetes, falls, and pain.

Patients in the intervention and control groups were comparable across most covariates; however, a greater proportion of intervention patients had pain-related diagnoses and depression. By 9 months, 26% of intervention patients (81 of 308) had discontinued benzodiazepines, compared with 17% (49 of 291) of control patients. Intervention patients had 1.73 greater odds of benzodiazepine discontinuation compared with controls (95% CI: 1.09, 2.75, p=0.02). The unadjusted number needed to treat was 10.5 (95% CI: 6.30, 34.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 0.095 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16).

Results from this non-randomised QI initiative indicate that patient education programmes using the EMPOWER brochures have the potential to promote cessation of benzodiazepines in primary care.

A non-contrast CT head scan (NCCTH) is the most common cross-sectional imaging investigation requested in the emergency department. Advances in computer vision have led to development of several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to detect abnormalities on NCCTH. These tools are intended to provide clinical decision support for clinicians, rather than stand-alone diagnostic devices. However, validation studies mostly compare AI performance against radiologists, and there is relative paucity of evidence on the impact of AI assistance on other healthcare staff who review NCCTH in their daily clinical practice.

A retrospective data set of 150 NCCTH will be compiled, to include 60 control cases and 90 cases with intracranial haemorrhage, hypodensities suggestive of infarct, midline shift, mass effect or skull fracture. The intracranial haemorrhage cases will be subclassified into extradural, subdural, subarachnoid, intraparenchymal and intraventricular. 30 readers will be recruited across four National Health Service (NHS) trusts including 10 general radiologists, 15 emergency medicine clinicians and 5 CT radiographers of varying experience. Readers will interpret each scan first without, then with, the assistance of the qER EU 2.0 AI tool, with an intervening 2-week washout period. Using a panel of neuroradiologists as ground truth, the stand-alone performance of qER will be assessed, and its impact on the readers’ performance will be analysed as change in accuracy (area under the curve), median review time per scan and self-reported diagnostic confidence. Subgroup analyses will be performed by reader professional group, reader seniority, pathological finding, and neuroradiologist-rated difficulty.

The study has been approved by the UK Healthcare Research Authority (IRAS 310995, approved 13 December 2022). The use of anonymised retrospective NCCTH has been authorised by Oxford University Hospitals. The results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

NCT06018545.

Identify university-aged students and contrast their healthcare provision and outcomes with other patients in the same age group attending emergency departments for deliberate self-harm.

Retrospective cross-sectional observational study.

Patients visiting 129 public hospital emergency departments across England between April 2017 and March 2018.

14 074 patients aged 18–23 visiting emergency departments for conditions linked to deliberate self-harm, 1016 of which were identified as university-aged students.

We study various outcomes across the entire patient pathway in the emergency department: waiting time to initial assessment on arrival at the emergency department, count of investigations delivered, discharge destination (patients refusing treatment or leave before being seen, referred to another provider or admitted to inpatient care, discharged with no follow-up) and unplanned follow-up visit within 7 days.

We find a statistically significant difference of 0.262 (–0.491 to –0.0327) less investigations delivered to students compared with non-students (about 8% compared with the baseline number of investigations for non-students). Stratified analyses reveal that this difference is concentrated among students visiting the emergency department outside of regular working hours (–0.485 (–0.850 to –0.120)) and students visiting for repeated deliberate self-harm episodes (–0.881 (–1.510 to –0.252)). Unplanned reattendance within 7 days is lower among students visiting emergency departments during out of hours (–0.0306 (–0.0576 to –0.00363)), while students arriving by ambulance are less likely to be referred to another provider (–0.0708 (–0.140 to –0.00182)) compared with non-students.

We find evidence of less-intense investigations being delivered to patients aged 18–23 identified as students compared with non-students visiting emergency departments after an episode of deliberate self-harm. Given the high risk of suicide attempts after episodes of deliberate self-harm among students, our findings may highlight the need for more focused interventions on this group of patients.

To describe stakeholder characteristics and perspectives about experiences, challenges and information needs related to the use of environmental scans (ESs).

Cross-sectional study.

A web-based survey platform was used to disseminate an online survey to stakeholders who had experience with conducting ESs in a health services delivery context (eg, researchers, policy makers, practitioners). Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. The survey was disseminated internationally, was available in English and French, and remained open for 6 weeks (15 October to 30 November 2022).

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and experiences of stakeholders. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-text questions.

Of 47 participants who responded to the survey, 94% were from Canada, 4% from the USA and 2% from Australia. Respondents represented academic institutions (57%), health agency/government (32%) and non-government organisations or agencies (11%). Three themes were identified: (a) having a sense of value and utility; (b) experiencing uncertainty and confusion; and (c) seeking guidance. The data suggest stakeholders found value and utility in ESs and conducted them for varied purposes including to: (a) enhance knowledge, understanding and learning about the current landscape or state of various features of health services delivery (eg, programmes, practices, policies, services, best practices); (b) expose needs, service barriers, challenges, gaps, threats, opportunities; (c) help guide action for planning, policy and programme development; and (d) inform recommendations and decision-making. Stakeholders also experienced conceptual, methodological and practical barriers when conducting ESs, and expressed a need for methodological guidance delivered through published guidelines, checklists and other means.

ESs have value and utility for addressing health services delivery concerns, but conceptual and methodological challenges exist. Further research is needed to help advance the ES as a distinct design that provides a systematic approach to planning and conducting ESs.

This study explored cancer pain management practices and clinical care pathways used by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to understand the barriers and facilitators for standardised pain management in oncology outpatient services (OS).

Data were collected using semistructured interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Three NHS trusts with oncology OS in Northern England.

Twenty HCPs with varied roles (eg, oncologist and nurse) and experiences (eg, registrar and consultant) from different cancer site clinics (eg, breast and lung). Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

HCPs discussed cancer pain management practices during consultation and supporting continuity of care beyond consultation. Key findings included : (1) HCPs’ level of clinical experience influenced pain assessments; (2) remote consulting impeded experienced HCPs to do detailed pain assessments; (3) diffusion of HCP responsibility to manage cancer pain; (4) nurses facilitated pain management support with patients and (5) continuity of care for pain management was constrained by the integration of multidisciplinary teams.

These data demonstrate HCP cancer pain management practices varied and were unstructured. Recommendations are made for a standardised cancer pain management intervention: (1) detailed evaluation of pain with a tailored self-management strategy; (2) implementation of a structured pain assessment that supports remote consultations, (3) pain assessment tool that can support both experienced and less experienced clinicians. These findings will inform the development of a cancer pain management tool to integrate within routine oncology OS.

To describe patterns of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health service use and factors that may influence the choice of modality in a child and adolescent service.

A pragmatic mixed-methods approach using routinely collected administrative data between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2022 and semi-structured interviews with clients, caregivers, clinicians and staff. Interview data were coded according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and examined for patterns of similarity or divergence across data sources, respondents or other relevant characteristics.

Child and adolescent outpatient mental health service, Nova Scotia, Canada.

IWK Health clinicians and staff who had participated in virtual mental healthcare following its implementation in March 2020 and clients (aged 12–18 years) and caregivers of clients (aged 3–18 years) who had received treatment from an IWK outpatient clinic between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2022 (n=1300). Participants (n=48) in semi-structured interviews included nine clients aged 13–18 years (mean 15.7 years), 10 caregivers of clients aged 5–17 years (mean 12.7 years), eight Community Mental Health and Addictions booking and registration or administrative staff and 21 clinicians.

During peak pandemic activity, upwards of 90% of visits (first or return) were conducted virtually. Between waves, return appointments were more likely to be virtual than first appointments. Interview participants (n=48) reported facilitators and barriers to virtual care within the CFIR domains of ‘outer setting’ (eg, external policies, client needs and resources), ‘inner setting’ (eg, communications within the service), ‘individual characteristics’ (eg, personal attributes, knowledge and beliefs about virtual care) and ‘intervention characteristics’ (eg, relative advantage of virtual or in-person care).

Shared decision-making regarding treatment modality (virtual vs in-person) requires consideration of client, caregiver, clinician, appointment, health system and public health factors across episodes of care to ensure accessible, safe and high-quality mental healthcare.

Despite their widespread use, the evidence base for the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives remains mixed. Lack of clarity about ‘what good looks like’ in collaboratives remains a persistent problem. We aimed to identify the distinctive features of a state-wide collaboratives programme that has demonstrated sustained improvements in quality of care in a range of clinical specialties over a long period.

Qualitative case study involving interviews with purposively sampled participants, observations and analysis of documents.

The Michigan Collaborative Quality Initiatives programme.

38 participants, including clinicians and managers from 10 collaboratives, and staff from the University of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

We identified five features that characterised success in the collaboratives programme: learning from positive deviance; high-quality coordination; high-quality measurement and comparative performance feedback; careful use of motivational levers; and mobilising professional leadership and building community. Rigorous measurement, securing professional leadership and engagement, cultivating a collaborative culture, creating accountability for quality, and relieving participating sites of unnecessary burdens associated with programme participation were all important to high performance.

Our findings offer valuable learning for optimising collaboration-based approaches to improvement in healthcare, with implications for the design, structure and resourcing of quality improvement collaboratives. These findings are likely to be useful to clinicians, managers, policy-makers and health system leaders engaged in multiorganisational approaches to improving quality and safety.

The RESPIRA cohort aims to describe the nature, magnitude, time course and efficacy of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, population prevalence, and household transmission of COVID-19.

From November 2020, we selected age-stratified random samples of COVID-19 cases from Costa Rica confirmed by PCR. For each case, two population-based controls, matched on age, sex and census tract were recruited, supplemented with hospitalised cases and household contacts. Participants were interviewed and blood and saliva collected for antibodies and PCR tests. Participants will be followed for 2 years to assess antibody response and infection incidence.

Recruitment included 3860 individuals: 1150 COVID-19 cases, 1999 population controls and 719 household contacts from 304 index cases. The age and regional distribution of cases was as planned, including four age strata, 30% rural and 70% urban. The control cohort had similar sex, age and regional distribution as the cases according to the study design. Among the 1999 controls recruited, 6.8% reported at enrolment having had COVID-19 and an additional 12.5% had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Compliance with visits and specimens has been close to 70% during the first 18 months of follow-up. During the study, national vaccination was implemented and nearly 90% of our cohort participants were vaccinated during follow-up.

RESPIRA will enable multiple analyses, including population prevalence of infection, clinical, behavioural, immunological and genetic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 acquisition and severity, and determinants of household transmission. We are conducting retrospective and prospective assessment of antibody levels, their determinants and their protective efficacy after infection and vaccination, the impact of long-COVID and a series of ancillary studies. Follow-up continues with bimonthly saliva collection for PCR testing and biannual blood collection for immune response analyses. Follow-up will be completed in early 2024.

NCT04537338.