Effectiveness of a behavioural intervention involving regular weighing and feedback by community midwives within routine antenatal care to prevent excessive gestational weight gain: POPS2 randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a brief behavioural intervention based on routine antenatal weighing to prevent excessive gestational weight gain (defined by US Institute of Medicine). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Antenatal clinic in England. PARTICIPANTS: Women between 10+0 and 14+6 weeks gestation, not requiring specialist obstetric care. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to usual antenatal care or usual care (UC) plus the intervention. The intervention involved community midwives weighing women at antenatal appointments, setting maximum weight gain limits between appointments and providing brief feedback. Women were encouraged to monitor and record their own weight weekly to assess their progress against the maximum limits set by their midwife. The comparator was usual maternity care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Excessive gestational weight gain, depression, anxiety and physical activity. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty-six women from four maternity centres were recruited: 329 women were randomised to the intervention group and 327 to UC. We found no evidence that the intervention decreased excessive gestational weight gain. At 38 weeks gestation, the proportions gaining excessive gestational weight were 27.6% (81/305) versus 28.9% (90/311) (adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.33) in the intervention and UC group, respectively. There were no significant difference between the groups in anxiety or depression scores (anxiety: adjusted mean -0.58, 95% CI:-1.25 to -0.8; depression: adjusted mean -0.60, 95% CI:-1.24 to -0.05). There were no significant differences in physical activity scores between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A behavioural intervention delivered by community midwives involving routine weighing throughout pregnancy, setting maximum weight gain targets and encouraging women to weigh themselves each week to check progress did not prevent excessive gestational weight gain. There was no evidence of psychological harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN67427351.

Are babies conceived during Ramadan born smaller and sooner than babies conceived at other times of the year? A Born in Bradford Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether infants exposed to intermittent maternal fasting at conception are born smaller or have a higher risk of premature birth than those who are not. Doctors are therefore unsure about what advice to give women about the safety of Ramadan fasting. This cohort study aimed to investigate these questions in Muslim mother-infant pairs to inform prenatal care. METHODS: Routinely collected data accessed from maternity records were the source for information. Mothers were considered exposed if they were Muslim and Ramadan overlapped with their infant conception date, estimated to be 14 days after the last menstrual period. Infants were included as exposed if their estimated conception date was in the first 21 days of Ramadan or 7 days prior to Ramadan. RESULTS: After adjusting for gestational age, maternal age, infant gender, maternal body mass index at booking, smoking status, gestational diabetes, parity and year of birth, there was no significant difference in birth weight between infants born to Muslim mothers who were conceived during Ramadan (n=479) and those who were not (n=4677) (adjusted mean difference =24.3 g, 95% CI -16.4 to 64.9). There was no difference in rates of premature births in exposed and unexposed women (5.2% vs 4.9%; OR=1.08, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy Muslim women considering becoming pregnant prior to, or during Ramadan, can be advised that fasting does not seem to have a detrimental effect on the size (weight) of their baby and it appears not to increase the likelihood of giving birth prematurely.

Evaluating the effectiveness of GP endorsement on increasing participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The success and cost-effectiveness of bowel cancer screening depends on achieving and maintaining high screening uptake rates. The involvement of GPs in screening has been found to improve patient compliance. Therefore, the endorsement of screening by GPs may increase uptake rates amongst non-responders. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-armed randomised controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a GP endorsed reminder in improving patient participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP). Up to 30 general practices in the West Midlands with a screening uptake rate of less than 50% will be recruited and patients identified from the patient lists of these practices. Eligible patients will be those aged 60 to 74, who have previously been invited to participate in bowel screening but who have been recorded by the Midlands and North West Bowel Cancer Screening Hub as non-responders. Approximately 4,380 people will be randomised in equal numbers to either the intervention (GP letter and duplicate FOBt kit) or control (no additional contact) arms of the trial. The primary outcome measure will be the difference in the uptake rate of FOBt screening for bowel cancer between the intervention and control groups at 13 weeks after the GP endorsed reminder and duplicate FOBt kit are sent. Secondary outcome measures will be subgroup analyses of uptake according to gender, age and deprivation quartile, and the validation of methods for collecting GP, NHSBCSP and patient costs associated with the intervention. Qualitative work (30 to 40 semi-structured interviews) will be undertaken with individuals in the intervention arm who return a FOBt kit, to investigate the relative importance of the duplicate FOBt kit, reminder to participate, and GP endorsement of that reminder in contributing to individuals' decisions to participate in screening. DISCUSSION: Implementing feasible, acceptable and cost-effective strategies to improve screening uptake amongst non-responders to invitations to participate is fundamentally important for the success of screening programmes. If this feasibility study demonstrates a significant increase in uptake of FOBt screening in individuals receiving the intervention, a definitive, appropriately powered future trial will be designed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN86784060.

Men's experience of erectile dysfunction after treatment for colorectal cancer: qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the experiences of men after treatment for colorectal cancer, identify barriers to accessing services, and suggest improvements to providing information in primary and secondary care. DESIGN: Semistructured, qualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 28 patients treated for colorectal cancer. SETTING: West Midlands. RESULTS: Most men treated for colorectal cancer experience erectile dysfunction as a consequence. Not all, however, want the same response from health professionals. Although, erectile dysfunction is profoundly stressful for most men, affecting self image, behaviour, and relationships, some do not regard it as a health priority. Many of the men were uninformed about erectile dysfunction and were unprepared for it, and the majority neither helped themselves nor asked for help. Almost none were receiving adequate, effective, and affordable care. Evidence of ageism was strong. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike patients with prostate cancer, men with colorectal cancer are not routinely offered information and treatment for erectile dysfunction. Greater coordination of care and consistent strategies are needed to tackle the unmet needs of this widely diverse patient group. Currently, clinicians are inadvertently neglecting, misleading, and offending such patients; better training could improve this situation, as might the reorganisation of services. Further research is needed to determine whether trained clinical nurse specialists in colorectal cancer units could coordinate ongoing care.

Colorectal cancer screening using the faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a survey of GP attitudes and practices in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Five-year survival rates are less than 50%, largely because of late diagnosis. Screening using faecal occult blood tests (FOBt) can detect bowel cancer at an earlier stage than symptomatic presentation, and has the potential to significantly decrease colorectal cancer mortality. However, uptake of screening is currently low, despite the introduction of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP), and it has been suggested that GP recommendations of screening can improve patient compliance. GP recommendation of CRC screening is argued to be affected by attitudes towards it, along with perceptions of its efficacy. METHODS: This paper presents the findings of a cross-sectional postal survey of GPs in the UK which aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes in relation to colorectal cancer screening and the use of FOBt in routine practice. An 'attitude' score was calculated, and binary logistic regression used to evaluate the association of socio-demographic and general practice attributes with attitudes towards CRC screening and FOBt. RESULTS: Of 3,191 GPs surveyed, 960 returned usable responses (response rate 30.7%). Positive attitudes were associated with personal experience of CRC screening and Asian or Asian British ethnicity. GPs from practices located in more deprived locations were also more likely to have positive attitudes towards FOBt and its recommendation to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The success of population-based screening for CRC will largely be determined by GP attitudes and support, particularly with regard to FOBt. Previous research has implied that South Asian GPs are more likely to have negative attitudes towards FOBt screening, however, our research suggests that this is not a group requiring targeted interventions to increase their support for the NHSBCSP. Of the available CRC screening tests, GPs perceived FOBt to be the most appropriate for population-based screening.

Self-testing for cancer: a community survey.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related self-tests are currently available to buy in pharmacies or over the internet, including tests for faecal occult blood, PSA and haematuria. Self-tests have potential benefits (e.g. convenience) but there are also potential harms (e.g. delays in seeking treatment). The extent of cancer-related self-test use in the UK is not known. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of cancer-related self-test use. METHODS: Adults (n = 5,545) in the West Midlands were sent a questionnaire that collected socio-demographic information and data regarding previous and potential future use of 18 different self-tests. Prevalence rates were directly standardised to the England population. The postcode based Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 was used as a proxy measure of deprivation. RESULTS: 2,925 (54%) usable questionnaires were returned. 1.2% (95% CI 0.83% to 1.66%) of responders reported having used a cancer related self test kit and a further 36% reported that they would consider using one in the future. Logistic regression analyses suggest that increasing age, deprivation category and employment status were associated with cancer-related self-test kit use. CONCLUSION: We conclude that one in 100 of the adult population have used a cancer-related self-test kit and over a third would consider using one in the future. Self-test kit use could alter perceptions of risk, cause psychological morbidity and impact on the demand for healthcare.

Prevalence of the use of cancer related self-tests by members of the public: a community survey.

BACKGROUND: Self-tests are those where an individual can obtain a result without recourse to a health professional, by getting a result immediately or by sending a sample to a laboratory that returns the result directly. Self-tests can be diagnostic, for disease monitoring, or both. There are currently tests for more than 20 different conditions available to the UK public, and self-testing is marketed as a way of alerting people to serious health problems so they can seek medical help. Almost nothing is known about the extent to which people self-test for cancer or why they do this. Self-tests for cancer could alter perceptions of risk and health behaviour, cause psychological morbidity and have a significant impact on the demand for healthcare. This study aims to gain an understanding of the frequency of self-testing for cancer and characteristics of users. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey. Adults registered in participating general practices in the West Midlands Region, will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will collect socio-demographic information and basic data regarding previous and potential future use of self-test kits. The only exclusions will be people who the GP feels it would be inappropriate to send a questionnaire, for example because they are unable to give informed consent. Freepost envelopes will be included and non-responders will receive one reminder. Standardised prevalence rates will be estimated. DISCUSSION: Cancer related self-tests, currently available from pharmacies or over the Internet, include faecal occult blood tests (related to bowel cancer), prostate specific antigen tests (related to prostate cancer), breast cancer kits (self examination guide) and haematuria tests (related to urinary tract cancers). The effect of an increase in self-testing for cancer is unknown but may be considerable: it may affect the delivery of population based screening programmes; empower patients or cause unnecessary anxiety; reduce costs on existing healthcare services or increase demand to investigate patients with positive test results. It is important that more is known about the characteristics of those who are using self-tests if we are to determine the potential impact on health services and the public.