No abstract

Given the abundance of misreporting about diet and cancer in the media and online, cancer survivors are at risk of misinformation. The aim of this study was to explore cancer survivors' beliefs about diet quality and cancer, the impact on their behaviour and sources of information. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with adult cancer survivors in the United Kingdom who had been diagnosed with any cancer in adulthood and were not currently receiving treatment (n = 19). Interviews were analysed using Thematic Analysis. Emergent themes highlighted that participants were aware of diet affecting risk for the development of cancer, but were less clear about its role in recurrence. Nonetheless, their cancer diagnosis appeared to be a prompt for dietary change; predominantly to promote general health. Changes were generally consistent with healthy eating recommendations, although dietary supplements and other non‐evidence‐based actions were mentioned. Participants reported that they had not generally received professional advice about diet and were keen to know more, but were often unsure about information from other sources. The views of our participants suggest cancer survivors would welcome guidance from health professionals. Advice that provides clear recommendations, and which emphasises the benefits of healthy eating for overall well‐being, may be particularly well‐received.

SummaryBackgroundThe increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality.MethodsIn a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20 184 individuals aged 40–69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081.FindingsOf 16 047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15 089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001–06, 11 737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184 057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9–9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90–1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75–1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90–1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75–2·10) associated with invitation to screening.InterpretationIn this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease.FundingWellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad.

BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, the benefits of such a strategy remain uncertain.Methods and designThe ADDITION-Cambridge study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (i) a stepwise screening strategy for type 2 diabetes; and (ii) intensive multifactorial treatment for people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care. 63 practices in the East Anglia region participated. Three undertook the pilot study, 33 were allocated to three groups: no screening (control), screening followed by intensive treatment (IT) and screening plus routine care (RC) in an unbalanced (1:3:3) randomisation. The remaining 27 practices were randomly allocated to IT and RC. A risk score incorporating routine practice data was used to identify people aged 40–69 years at high-risk of undiagnosed diabetes. In the screening practices, high-risk individuals were invited to take part in a stepwise screening programme. In the IT group, diabetes treatment is optimised through guidelines, target-led multifactorial treatment, audit, feedback, and academic detailing for practice teams, alongside provision of educational materials for newly diagnosed participants. Primary endpoints are modelled cardiovascular risk at one year, and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity at five years after diagnosis of diabetes. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, development of renal and visual impairment, peripheral neuropathy, health service costs, self-reported quality of life, functional status and health utility. Impact of the screening programme at the population level is also assessed through measures of mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, health status and health service use among high-risk individuals.DiscussionADDITION-Cambridge is conducted in a defined high-risk group accessible through primary care. It addresses the feasibility of population-based screening for diabetes, as well as the benefits and costs of screening and intensive multifactorial treatment early in the disease trajectory. The intensive treatment algorithm is based on evidence from studies including individuals with clinically diagnosed diabetes and the education materials are informed by psychological theory. ADDITION-Cambridge will provide timely evidence concerning the benefits of early intensive treatment and will inform policy decisions concerning screening for type 2 diabetes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled trials ISRCTN86769081

Limited literature exists on attitudes towards, knowledge of and where cancer survivors seek information on physical activity. This study aimed to address these gaps in the literature. Interviews were conducted with 19 UK‐based adult cancer survivors. Interviews covered participants’ knowledge of the relationship between physical activity and cancer, sources of information and attitudes towards physical activity following their cancer treatment. Data were analysed using Thematic Analysis. Key themes included “physical activity is good for you,” “desire to be more physically active,” “limited guidance on participation in physical activity,” “multi‐dimensional barriers and facilitators of physical activity.” Participants thought physical activity was good for them, and felt they should be more physically active. Participants reported receiving little information from oncology health professionals, as well as a desire for more guidance. Tiredness/fatigue was an important reported barrier to physical activity participation, as were situational constraints. Social support and structured exercise programmes were reported to facilitate physical activity. Health professionals should be encouraged to direct patients to appropriate sources for guidelines on physical activity for cancer survivors. Multi‐component interventions to increase physical activity behaviour that consider tiredness/fatigue and incorporate components of social support could be explored.