Primary care led dementia diagnosis services in South Gloucestershire: Themes from people and families living with dementia and health care professionals. Dementia, 15 (6). pp. 1586-1604. ISSN 1471-3012 Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/24782We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher's URL is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1471301214566476Refereed: Yes (no note) Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. AcknowledgementsWe would like to express our gratitude to the peer researchers; Berni Bell, Jill, Boreham, RosemaryHobday, Ruth Kelly, Dawn Rooke, Enid Smith and Hazel Thornton and to the service users, carers, and health professionals who participated in this study. Competing interestsTF and RC have received funding from the Alzheimer's Society. ED, SI, LG, RJ, and RG have no conflicts of interest. Authors' contributionsRG, SC and RC designed and ED managed the project. RG, RC, TF and ED trained and supervised the peer researchers; RJ, and the peer researchers undertook data collection tasks; ED, RC, SI and LG analysed the data. RC wrote the first draft of the paper, ED, RC and RG revised the paper. All authors have commented on drafts of the paper.

ObjectivesResponse rates to health‐related surveys are declining. This study tested two strategies to improve the response rate to a health psychology survey mailed through English general practices: (1) sending a shortened questionnaire and (2) offering a monetary incentive to return a completed questionnaire.DesignRandomized controlled trial.MethodsAdults (n = 4,241) aged 45–59 years, from four General Practices in South‐East England, were mailed a survey on attitudes towards bowel cancer screening. Using a 2 × 4 factorial design, participants were randomized to receive a ‘short’ (four A4 pages) or a ‘long’ (seven A4 pages) questionnaire, and one of four monetary incentives to return a completed questionnaire – (1) no monetary incentive, (2) £2.50 shop voucher, (3) £5.00 shop voucher, and (4) inclusion in a £250 shop voucher prize draw. Age, gender, and area‐level deprivation were obtained from the General Practices.ResultsThe overall response rate was 41% (n = 1,589). Response to the ‘short’ questionnaire (42%) was not significantly different from the ‘long’ questionnaire (40%). The £2.50 incentive (43%) significantly improved response rates in univariate analyses, and remained significant after controlling for age, gender, area‐level deprivation, and questionnaire length. The £5.00 (42%) and £250 prize draw (41%) incentives had no significant impact on response rates compared to no incentive (38%).ConclusionsA small monetary incentive (£2.50) may slightly increase response to a mailed health psychology survey. The length of the questionnaire (four pages vs. seven pages) did not influence response. Although frequently used, entry into a prize draw did not increase response. Achieving representative samples remains a challenge for health psychology. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject Response rates to mailed questionnaires continue to decline, threatening the representativeness of data.Prize draw incentives are frequently used but there is little evidence to support their efficacy.Research on interactions between incentives, questionnaire length, and demographics is lacking. What does this study add Contrary to previous findings, questionnaire length did not influence response rate.A £2.50 incentive increased response, while incentives of £5.00 and a £250 prize draw did not.Achieving representative samples to questionnaires remains a challenge for health psychology.

BackgroundIn Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories.MethodsWe purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal (‘colorectal-specific non-participants’); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51–64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis.ResultsOf the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups’ perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening.ConclusionOur comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders.

Introduction: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. Methods: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. Results: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. Discussion: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.