BackgroundHealthy lifestyles are an important facet of cardiovascular risk management. Unfortunately many individuals fail to engage with lifestyle change programmes. There are many factors that patients report as influencing their decisions about initiating lifestyle change. This is challenging for health care professionals who may lack the skills and time to address a broad range of barriers to lifestyle behaviour. Guidance on which factors to focus on during lifestyle consultations may assist healthcare professionals to hone their skills and knowledge leading to more productive patient interactions with ultimately better uptake of lifestyle behaviour change support. The aim of our study was to clarify which influences reported by patients predict uptake and completion of formal lifestyle change programmes.MethodsA systematic narrative review of quantitative observational studies reporting factors (influences) associated with uptake and completion of lifestyle behaviour change programmes. Quantitative observational studies involving patients at high risk of cardiovascular events were identified through electronic searching and screened against pre-defined selection criteria. Factors were extracted and organised into an existing qualitative framework.Results374 factors were extracted from 32 studies. Factors most consistently associated with uptake of lifestyle change related to support from family and friends, transport and other costs, and beliefs about the causes of illness and lifestyle change. Depression and anxiety also appear to influence uptake as well as completion. Many factors show inconsistent patterns with respect to uptake and completion of lifestyle change programmes.ConclusionThere are a small number of factors that consistently appear to influence uptake and completion of cardiovascular lifestyle behaviour change. These factors could be considered during patient consultations to promote a tailored approach to decision making about the most suitable type and level lifestyle behaviour change support.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to establish the association between timing and provision of palliative care (PC) and quality of end-of-life care indicators in a population of patients dying of cancer.SettingThis study uses linked cancer patient data from the National Cancer Registry, the electronic medical record system used in primary care (SystmOne) and the electronic medical record system used within a specialist regional cancer centre. The population resided in a single city in Northern England.ParticipantsRetrospective data from 2479 adult cancer decedents who died between January 2010 and February 2012 were registered with a primary care provider using the SystmOne electronic health record system, and cancer was certified as a cause of death, were included in the study.ResultsLinkage yielded data on 2479 cancer decedents, with 64.5% who received at least one PC event. Decedents who received PC were significantly more likely to die in a hospice (39.4% vs 14.5%, P<0.005) and less likely to die in hospital (23.3% vs 40.1%, P<0.05), and were more likely to receive an opioid (53% vs 25.2%, P<0.001). PC initiated more than 2 weeks before death was associated with avoiding a hospital death (≥2 weeks, P<0.001), more than 4 weeks before death was associated with avoiding emergency hospital admissions and increased access to an opioid (≥4 weeks, P<0.001), and more than 33 weeks before death was associated with avoiding late chemotherapy (≥33 weeks, no chemotherapy P=0.019, chemotherapy over 4 weeks P=0.007).ConclusionFor decedents with advanced cancer, access to PC and longer duration of PC were significantly associated with better end-of-life quality indicators.

The 1995 Calman -Hine plan outlined radical reform of the UK's cancer services with the aim of improving outcomes and reducing inequalities in NHS cancer care. Its main recommendation was to concentrate care into the hands of site-specialist, multi-disciplinary teams. This study aimed to determine if the implementation of Calman -Hine cancer teams was associated with improved processes and outcomes of care for colorectal cancer patients. The design included longitudinal survey of 13 colorectal cancer teams in Yorkshire and retrospective study of population-based data collected by the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service. The population was all colorectal cancer patients diagnosed and treated in Yorkshire between 1995 and 2000. The main outcome measures were: variations in the use of anterior resection and preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer, chemotherapy in Dukes stage C and D patients, and five-year survival. Using multilevel models, these outcomes were assessed in relation to measures of the extent of Calman -Hine implementation throughout the study period, namely: (i) each team's degree of adherence to the Manual of Cancer Service Standards (which outlines the specification of the 'ideal' colorectal cancer team) and (ii) the extent of site specialisation of each team's surgeons. Variation was observed in the extent to which the colorectal cancer teams in Yorkshire had conformed to the Calman -Hine recommendations. An increase in surgical site specialisation was associated with increased use of preoperative radiotherapy (OR ¼ 1.43, 95% CI ¼ 1.04 -1.98, Po0.04) and anterior resection (OR ¼ 1.43, 95% CI ¼ 1.16 -1.76, Po0.01) in rectal cancer patients. Increases in adherence to the Manual of Cancer Service Standards was associated with improved five-year survival after adjustment for the casemix factors of age, stage of disease, socioeconomic status and year of diagnosis, especially for colon cancer (HR ¼ 0.97, 95% CI ¼ 0.94 -0.99 Po0.01). There was a similar trend of improved survival in relation to increased surgical site specialisation for rectal cancer, although the effect was not statistically significant (HR ¼ 0.93, 95% CI ¼ 0.84 -1.03, P ¼ 0.15). In conclusion, the extent of implementation of the Calman -Hine report has been variable and its recommendations are associated with improvements in processes and outcomes of care for colorectal cancer patients.

No abstract

Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.