ObjectiveTo review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis, Joanna Briggs, Global Health, and World Health Organization COVID-19 database (preprints).Eligibility criteria for study selectionObservational and interventional studies that assessed the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was incidence of covid-19. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 mortality.Data synthesisDerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on incidence of covid-19. Pooled effect estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed, and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and the I2 metrics, with two tailed P values.Results72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a “package of interventions.” Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I2=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I2=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I2=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020178692.

No abstract

PurposeThe Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia.ParticipantsIt supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation.Findings to dateThe UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile.Future plansThe UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.

PurposePatient-centred and value-based health-care organisations are increasingly recognising the importance of the patient perspective in the measurement and evaluation of health outcomes. This has been primarily implemented using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are specifically designed to improve direct clinical care, benchmark health-care provision and inform health service planning and policy. Despite CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of health-care provision, no evidence-based guidelines for inclusion of PROMs in CQRs exist. This has led to substantial heterogeneity in capturing and reporting PROMs within this setting. This publication is the first in a series describing the development of evidence-informed guidelines for PROMs inclusion within CQRs in Australia.MethodsThis study consisted of three components: 1) a literature review of existing evidence of guidelines, enablers, barriers, and lessons learnt of PROMs use within the CQRs setting; 2) a survey of Australian CQRs to determine current practices for PROMs use and reporting; and 3) development of a preliminary conceptual framework for PROMs inclusion in CQRs.ResultsContent analysis of the literature review and survey of 66 Australian registries elicited eight categories for the conceptual framework. The framework covers eight components: rationale, setting, ethics, selection of PROMs, administration, data management, statistical methods, feedback, and reporting.ConclusionWe developed a preliminary conceptual framework, which classified findings, from both the literature and the survey, into broad categories ranging from initial development to outcome dissemination providing the structure for development of guidelines in the next phase of this project, engaging national and international leaders in health-related quality of life research, clinicians, researchers, patient advocates and consumers.

BackgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend discussion by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review and plan the management of patients for a variety of cancers. However, not all patients diagnosed with cancer are presented at an MDT.Objectives(1) To identify the factors (barriers and enablers) influencing presentation of all patients to, and the perceived value of, MDT meetings in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and; (2) to identify potential interventions that could overcome modifiable barriers and enhance enablers using the theoretical domains framework (TDF).MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, palliative care specialists and nurse specialists based in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via videoconferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, deidentified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the TDF. Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses.ResultsIn total, 29 specialists were interviewed over a 4-month period. Twenty-two themes and 40 belief statements relevant to all the TDF domains were generated. Key enablers influencing MDT practices included a strong organisational focus (social/professional role and identity), beliefs about the benefits of an MDT discussion (beliefs about consequences), the use of technology, for example, videoconferencing (environmental context and resources), the motivation to provide good quality care (motivation and goals) and collegiality (social influences). Barriers included: absence of palliative care representation (skills), the number of MDT meetings (environmental context and resources), the cumulative cost of staff time (beliefs about consequences), the lack of capacity to discuss all patients within the allotted time (beliefs about capabilities) and reduced confidence to participate in discussions (social influences).ConclusionsThe internal and external organisational structures surrounding MDT meetings ideally need to be strengthened with the development of agreed evidence-based protocols and referral pathways, a focus on resource allocation and capabilities, and a culture that fosters widespread collaboration for all stages of pancreatic cancer.

Background Clinical quality registries (CQRs) monitor compliance against optimal practice and provide feedback to the clinical community and wider stakeholder groups. Despite a number of CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of healthcare delivery, no recommendations for inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CQRs exist. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of recommendations for PROMs inclusion of in CQRs. Method An online two-round Delphi survey was performed among CQR data custodians, quality of life researchers, biostatisticians and clinicians largely recruited in Australia. A list of statements for the recommendations was identified from a literature and survey of the Australian registries conducted in 2019. The statements were grouped into the following domains: rationale, setting, ethics, instrument, administration, data management, statistical methods, and feedback and reporting. Eighteen experts were invited to participate, 11 agreed to undertake the first online survey (round 1). Of these, nine experts completed the online survey for round 2. Results From 117 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 72 recommendations (55 from round 1 and 17 from round 2) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Recommendations were refined for clarity and to read as stand-alone statements. Ten overlapped conceptually and, therefore, were merged to reduce repetition. The final 62 recommendations were sent for review to the panel members for their feedback, which was incorporated into the final set. Conclusion This is the first study to develop preliminary recommendations for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Recommendations for PROMs implementation are critically important for registries to assure meaningful PROMs data capture, use, interpretation, and reporting to improve health outcomes and healthcare value.

Background: Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory.Methods: A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set.Results: From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. Conclusions:The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.

No abstract