BackgroundInequalities in survival from colorectal cancer (CRC) across socioeconomic groups and by area of residence have been described in various health care settings. Few population-wide datasets which include clinical and treatment information are available in Australia to investigate disparities. This study examines socio-demographic differences in survival for CRC patients in South Australia (SA), using a population-wide database derived via linkage of administrative and surveillance datasets.
MethodsThe study population comprised all cases of CRC diagnosed in 2003-2008 among SA residents aged 50-79 yrs in the SA Central Cancer Registry. Measures of socioeconomic status (area level), geographical remoteness, clinical characteristics, comorbid conditions, treatments and outcomes were derived through record linkage of central cancer registry, hospital-based clinical registries, hospital separations, and radiotherapy services data sources. Socio-demographic disparities in CRC survival were examined using competing risk regression analysis.ResultsFour thousand six hundred and forty one eligible cases were followed for an average of 4.7 yrs, during which time 1525 died from CRC and 416 died from other causes. Results of competing risk regression indicated higher risk of CRC death with higher grade (HR high v low =2.25, 95 % CI 1.32-3.84), later stage (HR C v A = 7.74, 95 % CI 5.75-10.4), severe comorbidity (HR severe v none =1.21, 95 % CI 1.02-1.44) and receiving radiotherapy (HR = 1.41, 95 % CI 1.18-1.68). Patients from the most socioeconomically advantaged areas had significantly better outcomes than those from the least advantaged areas (HR =0.75, 95 % 0.62-0.91). Patients residing in remote locations had significantly worse outcomes than metropolitan residents, though this was only evident for stages A-C (HR = 1.35, 95 % CI 1.01-1.80). These disparities were not explained by differences in stage at diagnosis between socioeconomic groups or area of residence. Nor were they explained by differences in patient factors, other tumour characteristics, comorbidity, or treatment modalities.ConclusionsSocio-economic and regional disparities in survival following CRC are evident in SA, despite having a universal health care system. Of particular concern is the poorer survival for patients from remote areas with potentially curable CRC. Reasons for these disparities require further exploration to identify factors that can be addressed to improve outcomes.
Dysphagia lusoria is a term used to describe dysphagia secondary to vascular compression of the oesophagus. The various embryologic anomalies of the arterial brachial arch system often remain unrecognised and asymptomatic, but in 30%-40% of cases can result in tracheo-oesophageal symptoms, which in the majority of cases manifest as dysphagia. Diagnosis of dysphagia lusoria is via barium swallow and chest Computed tomography scan. Manometric abnormalities are variable, but age-related manometric changes may contribute to clinically relevant dysphagia lusoria in patients who present later in life. Our report describes a case of late-onset dysphagia secondary to a right aortic arch with an aberrant left subclavian artery, which represents a rare variant of dysphagia lusoria. The patient had proven additional oesophageal dysmotility with solid bolus only and a clinical response to dietary modification.
Healthcare systems throughout the world continue to face emerging challenges associated with chronic disease management. Due to the likely increase in chronic conditions in the future it is now vital that cooperation and support between specialists, generalists and primary health care physicians is conducted.Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is one such chronic disease. Despite specialist care being essential, much IBD care could and probably should be delivered in primary care with continued collaboration between all stakeholders. Whilst most primary care physicians only have few patients currently affected by IBD in their caseload, the proportion of patients with IBDrelated healthcare issues cared for in the primary care setting appears to be widespread. Data suggests however, that primary care physician's IBD knowledge and comfort in management is suboptimal. Current treatment guidelines for IBD are helpful but they are not designed for the primary care setting. Few nonexpert IBD management tools or guidelines exist compared with those used for other chronic diseases such as asthma and scant data have been published regarding the usefulness of such tools including IBD action plans and associated supportive literature. The purpose of this review is to investigate what nonspecialist tools, action plans or guidelines for IBD are published in readily searchable medical literature and compare these to those which exist for other chronic conditions. Core tip: Much inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care could be delivered in the outpatient setting by primary care physicians. Whilst guidelines for IBD treatment exist, they are intended to support specialist practice and are not designed to use in the primary care setting. Our systematic reviewed found that a striking paucity of IBD outpatient supportive/educational tools for primary healthcare practitioners currently exists. This is despite good evidence of acceptability and usefulness of such tools in other chronic diseases.
TOPIC HIGHLIGHT
Findings support the continued delivery and evaluation of Chromis. There may be benefit in exploring ways to further understand and address verbal aggression in participants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.