Strategies for increasing the participation of women in community breast cancer screening.

ObjectiveCancer care has been disrupted by the response of health systems to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during lockdowns. The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the incidence of cancer diagnoses in primary care.DesignTime-series study of malignant neoplasms and diagnostic procedures, using data from the primary care electronic health records from January 2014 to September 2020.SettingPrimary care, Catalonia, Spain.ParticipantsPeople older than 14 years and assigned in one of the primary care practices of the Catalan Institute of Health with a new diagnosis of malignant neoplasm.Main outcome measuresWe obtained the monthly expected incidence of malignant neoplasms using a temporary regression, where the response variable was the incidence of cancer from 2014 to 2018 and the adjustment variables were the trend and seasonality of the time series. Excess or lack of malignant neoplasms was defined as the number of observed minus expected cases, globally and stratified by sex, age, type of cancer and socioeconomic status.ResultsBetween March and September 2020 we observed 8766 (95% CI 4135 to 13 397) fewer malignant neoplasm diagnoses, representing a reduction of 34% (95% CI 19.5% to 44.1%) compared with the expected. This underdiagnosis was greater in individuals aged older than 64 years, men and in some types of cancers (skin, colorectal, prostate). Although the reduction was predominantly focused during the lockdown, expected figures have not yet been reached (40.5% reduction during the lockdown and 24.3% reduction after that).ConclusionsReduction in cancer incidence has been observed during and after the lockdown. Urgent policy interventions are necessary to mitigate the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related control measures on other diseases and some strategies must be designed in order to reduce the underdiagnosis of cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) provide recommendations on the benefits and harms of different healthcare interventions. Proper CPG development and implementation can potentially reduce variability in clinical practice while improving its quality and safety. The GRADE system is used to assess the quality of evidence and to grade the strength of recommendations in the context of the development of CPGs, systematic reviews or health technology assessments. The aim of this article is to describe the main characteristics of the GRADE system through relevant examples in the context of primary care.

ObjectivesCancer survival and stage of disease at diagnosis and treatment vary widely across Europe. These differences may be partly due to variations in access to investigations and specialists. However, evidence to explain how different national health systems influence primary care practitioners’ (PCPs’) referral decisions is lacking.This study analyses health system factors potentially influencing PCPs’ referral decision-making when consulting with patients who may have cancer, and how these vary between European countries.DesignBased on a content-validity consensus, a list of 45 items relating to a PCP’s decisions to refer patients with potential cancer symptoms for further investigation was reduced to 20 items. An online questionnaire with the 20 items was answered by PCPs on a five-point Likert scale, indicating how much each item affected their own decision-making in patients that could have cancer. An exploratory factor analysis identified the factors underlying PCPs’ referral decision-making.SettingA primary care study; 25 participating centres in 20 European countries.Participants1830 PCPs completed the survey. The median response rate for participating centres was 20.7%.Outcome measuresThe factors derived from items related to PCPs’ referral decision-making. Mean factor scores were produced for each country, allowing comparisons.ResultsFactor analysis identified five underlying factors: PCPs’ ability to refer; degree of direct patient access to secondary care; PCPs’ perceptions of being under pressure; expectations of PCPs’ role; and extent to which PCPs believe that quality comes before cost in their health systems. These accounted for 47.4% of the observed variance between individual responses.ConclusionsFive healthcare system factors influencing PCPs’ referral decision-making in 20 European countries were identified. The factors varied considerably between European countries. Knowledge of these factors could assist development of health service policies to produce better cancer outcomes, and inform future research to compare national cancer diagnostic pathways and outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundThere is controversy regarding how comorbidity impacts on colorectal cancer screening, especially in the context of organised programmes. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of comorbidities on participation in the Barcelona population-based colorectal cancer screening programme (BCCSP).MethodsCross-sectional study carried out in ten primary care centres involved in the BCCSP. Individuals aged 50 to 69, at average risk of colorectal cancer, who were invited to participate in the first round of the faecal immunochemical test-based BCCSP were included (2011–2012). The main variable was participation in the BCCSP. Comorbidity was assessed by clinical risk group status. Other adjusting variables were age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, visits to primary care, smoking, alcohol consumption and body mass index. Logistic regression models were used to test the association between participation in the programme and potential explanatory variables. The results were given as incidence rate ratios (IRR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOf the 36,208 individuals included, 17,404 (48%) participated in the BCCSP. Participation was statistically significantly higher in women, individuals aged 60 to 64, patients with intermediate socioeconomic deprivation, and patients with more medical visits. There was a higher rate of current smoking, high-risk alcohol intake, obesity and individuals in the highest comorbidity categories in the non-participation group. In the adjusted analysis, only individuals with multiple minor chronic diseases were more likely to participate in the BCCSP (IRR 1.14; 95% CI [1.06 to 1.22]; p < 0.001). In contrast, having three or more dominant chronic diseases was associated with lower participation in the screening programme (IRR 0.76; 95% CI [0.65 to 0.89]; p = 0.001).ConclusionsHaving three or more dominant chronic diseases, was associated with lower participation in a faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programme, whereas individuals with multiple minor chronic diseases were more likely to participate. Further research is needed to explore comorbidity as a cause of non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes and which individuals could benefit most from colorectal cancer screening.