What health inequalities exist in access to, outcomes from and experience of treatment for lung cancer? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer (LC) continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths and while there have been significant improvements in overall survival, this gain is not equally distributed. To address health inequalities (HIs), it is vital to identify whether and where they exist. This paper reviews existing literature on what HIs impact LC care and where these manifest on the care pathway. DESIGN: A systematic scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases (EMBASE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed) were used to retrieve articles. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Search limits were set to retrieve articles published between January 2012 and April 2022. Papers examining LC along with domains of HI were included. Two authors screened papers and independently assessed full texts. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: HIs were categorised according to: (a) HI domains: Protected Characteristics (PC); Socioeconomic and Deprivation Factors (SDF); Geographical Region (GR); Vulnerable or Socially Excluded Groups (VSG); and (b) where on the LC pathway (access to, outcomes from, experience of care) inequalities manifest. Data were extracted by two authors and collated in a spreadsheet for structured analysis and interpretation. RESULTS: 41 papers were included. The most studied domain was PC (32/41), followed by SDF (19/41), GR (18/41) and VSG (13/41). Most studies investigated differences in access (31/41) or outcomes (27/41), with few (4/41) exploring experience inequalities. Evidence showed race, rural residence and being part of a VSG impacted the access to LC diagnosis, treatment and supportive care. Additionally, rural residence, older age or male sex negatively impacted survival and mortality. The relationship between outcomes and other factors (eg, race, deprivation) showed mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings offer an opportunity to reflect on the understanding of HIs in LC care and provide a platform to consider targeted efforts to improve equity of access, outcomes and experience for patients.

Multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals' perceptions of current and optimal acute rehabilitation, a hip fracture example A UK qualitative interview study informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVE: To understand multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals' perceptions of current and optimal provision of acute rehabilitation, perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation, and their implications for patient recovery, using hip fracture as an example. METHODS: A qualitative design was adopted using semi-structured telephone interviews with 20 members of the acute multidisciplinary healthcare team (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, physicians, nurses) working on orthopaedic wards at 15 different hospitals across the UK. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and then thematically analysed drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework to enhance our understanding of the findings. RESULTS: We identified four themes: conceptualising a model of rehabilitative practice, which reflected the perceived variability of rehabilitation models, along with facilitators and common patient and organisational barriers for optimal rehabilitation; competing professional and organisational goals, which highlighted the reported incompatibility between organisational goals and person-centred care shaping rehabilitation practices, particularly for more vulnerable patients; engaging teams in collaborative practice, which related to the expressed need to work well with all members of the multidisciplinary team to achieve the same person-centred goals and share rehabilitation practices; and engaging patients and their carers, highlighting the importance of their involvement to achieve a holistic and collaborative approach to rehabilitation in the acute setting. Barriers and facilitators within themes were underpinned by the lack or presence of adequate ways of communicating with patients, carers, and multidisciplinary team members; resources (e.g. equipment, staffing, group classes), and support from people in leadership positions such as management and senior staff. CONCLUSIONS: Cornerstones of optimal acute rehabilitation are effective communication and collaborative practices between the multidisciplinary team, patients and carers. Supportive management and leadership are central to optimise these processes. Organisational constraints are the most commonly perceived barrier to delivering effective rehabilitation in hospital settings, which exacerbate silo working and limited patient engagement.

Patient perspectives of recovery after hip fracture: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current review is to synthesize the evidence of patients' perspectives of recovery after hip fracture across the care continuum. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted, focusing on qualitative data from hip fracture patients. Screening, quality appraisal, and a subset of articles for extraction were completed in duplicate. Themes were generated using a thematic synthesis of data from original studies. RESULTS: Fourteen high-quality qualitative studies were included. Four review themes were identified: recovery as participation, feelings of vulnerability, driving recovery, and reliance on support. Patients considered recovery as a return to pre-fracture activities or "normal" enabling independence. Feelings of vulnerability were observed irrespective of the time since hip fracture and only diminished when recovery of function and activities enabled participation in valued activities, e.g., outdoor mobility. Participants expressed a desire to engage in recovery with realistic expectations and the benefits of meaningful feedback reported. While reliance on healthcare professionals decreased towards a later stage of recovery, reliance on social support persisted until recovery was perceived to have been achieved. CONCLUSION: Patient perspectives highlighted hip fracture as a major life event requiring health professional and social support to overcome feelings of vulnerability and enable active engagement in recovery.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation professionals should ensure expectations and goals are set early in the recovery process.Rehabilitation professionals should ensure goals set with patients are tailored to the individual's pre-fracture activities or "normal" promoting independence.Rehabilitation professionals should monitor goals ensuring they are providing support, motivation, and managing expectations across the care continuum.Rehabilitation professionals should address patients' feelings of vulnerability, particularly in the absence of social support, and ensure appropriate ongoing input to maximize recovery.

Effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy after hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is limited evidence from 11 randomised controlled trials on the effect of rehabilitation interventions which incorporate outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and/or self-efficacy after hip fracture. Outdoor mobility should be central (not peripheral) to future intervention studies targeting improvements in ambulatory ability. PURPOSE: Determine the extent to which outdoor mobility is incorporated into rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. Synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility after hip fracture from database inception to January 2021. Exclusion of protocols, pilot/feasibility studies, secondary analyses of RCTs, nonrandomised and non-English language studies. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias, and data extraction sample. Random effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity with inconsistency-value (I2). RESULTS: RCTs (n = 11) provided limited detail on target or achieved outdoor mobility intervention components. There was conflicting evidence from 2 RCTs for the effect on outdoor walking ability at 1-3 months (risk difference 0.19; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.21, 0.58; I2 = 92%), no effect on walking endurance at intervention end (standardised mean difference 0.05; 95% CI: - 0.26, 0.35; I2 = 36%); and suggestive (CI crosses null) of a small effect on self-efficacy at 1-3 months (standardised mean difference 0.25; 95% CI: - 0.29, 0.78; I2 = 87%) compared with routine care/sham intervention. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to attribute any benefit observed to an outdoor mobility intervention component due to poor reporting of target or achieved outdoor mobility and/or quality of the underlying evidence. Given the low proportion of patients recovering outdoor mobility after hip fracture, future research on interventions with outdoor mobility as a central component is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021236541.

Orthopaedic physiotherapists' perceptions of mechanisms for observed variation in the implementation of physiotherapy practices in the early postoperative phase after hip fracture: a UK qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: to explore physiotherapists' perceptions of mechanisms to explain observed variation in early postoperative practice after hip fracture surgery demonstrated in a national audit. METHODS: a qualitative semi-structured interview study of 21 physiotherapists working on orthopaedic wards at seven hospitals with different durations of physiotherapy during a recent audit. Thematic analysis of interviews drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to aid interpretation of findings. RESULTS: four themes were identified: achieving protocolised and personalised care; patient and carer engagement; multidisciplinary team engagement across the care continuum and strategies for service improvement. Most expressed variation from protocol was legitimate when driven by what is deemed clinically appropriate for a given patient. This tailored approach was deemed essential to optimise patient and carer engagement. Participants reported inconsistent degrees of engagement from the multidisciplinary team attributing this to competing workload priorities, interpreting 'postoperative physiotherapy' as a single professional activity rather than a care delivery approach, plus lack of integration between hospital and community care. All participants recognised changes needed at both structural and process levels to improve their services. CONCLUSION: physiotherapists highlighted an inherent conflict between their intention to deliver protocolised care and allowing for an individual patient-tailored approach. This conflict has implications for how audit results should be interpreted, how future clinical guidelines are written and how physiotherapists are trained. Physiotherapists also described additional factors explaining variation in practice, which may be addressed through increased engagement of the multidisciplinary team and resources for additional staffing and advanced clinical roles.

Carer coping and resident agitation as predictors of quality of life in care home residents living with dementia: Managing Agitation and Raising Quality of Life (MARQUE) English national care home prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study are (1) to test our primary hypothesis that carers using more dysfunctional coping strategies predict lower quality of life in care home residents living with dementia, and this is moderated by levels of resident agitation, and (2) to explore relationships between carer dysfunctional coping strategy use, agitation, quality of life, and resident survival. METHODS: In the largest prospective cohort to date, we interviewed carers from 97 care home units (baseline, 4, 8, 12, 16 months) about quality of life (DEMQOL-Proxy) and agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory) of 1483 residents living with dementia. At baseline, we interviewed 1566 carers about coping strategies (Brief COPE), averaging scores across care home units. RESULTS: Carer dysfunctional coping strategies did not predict resident quality of life over 16 months (0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.46). Lower resident quality of life was longitudinally associated with worse Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score (-0.25, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.23). Survival was not associated with carer dysfunctional coping, resident quality of life, or agitation scores. CONCLUSIONS: Carer dysfunctional coping did not predict resident quality of life. Levels of resident agitation were consistently high and related to lower quality of life, over 16 months. Lack of association between carer dysfunctional coping and resident quality of life may reflect the influence of the care home or an insensitivity of aggregated coping strategy scores. The lack of relationship with survival indicates that agitation is not explained mainly by illness. Scalable interventions to reduce agitation in care home residents living with dementia are urgently needed.