Social identity enactment in a pandemic: Scottish Muslims' experiences of restricted access to communal spaces.

The comprehensive analysis of social identity cannot simply focus on individuals' cognitive self-definition. Rather it should also theorize the social conditions that affect individuals' opportunities to act in terms of those self-definitions. We argue that the social distancing interventions associated with Covid-19 provide an opportunity to explore the significance of otherwise taken-for-granted social factors which routinely support and sustain individuals' identity enactments. Using qualitative data gathered with 20 members of the Scottish Muslim community (19 diary entries and 20 post-diary interviews), we explore their experiences of restricted access to community-relevant social spaces (e.g., mosques and prayer rooms). Our analysis shows that while these regulations could result in new opportunities for Muslims' religious identity enactments, they also impeded their abilities to act in terms of their religious identification. Addressing such impediments, we develop our understanding of the contextual factors that shape individuals' abilities to enact identity-defining norms and values.

Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: the CAVA three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Venous access devices are used for patients receiving long-term chemotherapy. These include centrally inserted tunnelled catheters or Hickman-type devices (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted totally implantable venous access devices (PORTs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these devices for the central delivery of chemotherapy. DESIGN: An open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to inform three comparisons: (1) peripherally inserted central catheters versus Hickman, (2) PORTs versus Hickman and (3) PORTs versus peripherally inserted central catheters. Pre-trial and post-trial qualitative research and economic evaluation were also conducted. SETTING: This took place in 18 UK oncology centres. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) receiving chemotherapy (≥ 12 weeks) for either a solid or a haematological malignancy were randomised via minimisation. INTERVENTIONS: Hickman, peripherally inserted central catheters and PORTs. PRIMARY OUTCOME: A composite of infection (laboratory confirmed, suspected catheter related and exit site infection), mechanical failure, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, inability to aspirate blood and other complications in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Overall, 1061 participants were recruited to inform three comparisons. First, for the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 212) with Hickman (n = 212), it could not be concluded that peripherally inserted central catheters were significantly non-inferior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.71). The use of peripherally inserted central catheters compared with Hickman was associated with a substantially lower cost (-£1553) and a small decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.009). Second, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 253) with Hickman (n = 303), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.77). PORTs were found to dominate Hickman with lower costs (-£45) and greater quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.004). This was alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 14%); the incremental cost per complication averted was £1.36. Third, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 147) with peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 199), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.83). PORTs were associated with an incremental cost of £2706 when compared with peripherally inserted central catheters and a decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.018) PORTs are dominated by peripherally inserted central catheters: alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 15%), the incremental cost per complication averted was £104. The qualitative work showed that attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their central venous access device as part of their treatment and recovery. PORTs were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. The main limitation was the lack of adequate power (54%) in the non-inferiority comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman. CONCLUSIONS: In the delivery of long-term chemotherapy, peripherally inserted central catheters should be considered a cost-effective option when compared with Hickman. There were significant clinical benefits when comparing PORTs with Hickman and with peripherally inserted central catheters. The health economic benefits were less clear from the perspective of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, dependent on the willingness to pay, PORTs may be considered to be cost-effective from the perspective of complications averted. FUTURE WORK: The deliverability of a PORTs service merits further study to understand the barriers to and methods of improving the service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN44504648. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NHIR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

For patients who need long-term chemotherapy delivered through a vein, there are currently three options: (1) a Hickman-type device, which is a flexible tube (central line) inserted underneath the skin on the chest into a large vein; (2) a peripherally inserted central catheter, which is a long line tube inserted into a vein in the arm and passed through a large vein in the chest; and (3) a totally implantable device, which is a small chamber (accessed externally by a needle) that sits underneath the skin, usually in the chest, and goes into a large vein. The Cancer And Venous Access (CAVA) trial compared these devices in > 1000 patients and looked at complications, quality of life, acceptability and value for money. We found that totally implantable devices halved the risk of complications compared with the other two options (which had similar complication rates to each other). We found that patients' quality of life was similar for all three devices, although a quality-of-life measure specific to these devices showed some emotional and psychological benefits in favour of totally implantable devices. All three devices work, although the totally implantable devices are associated with fewer complications and are less intrusive for patients. In the CAVA trial, we found that totally implantable devices are the most costly device to use, followed by the Hickman-type device, with the peripherally inserted central device being the cheapest. This is partly because of the tendency for totally implantable devices to remain in patients for a longer period of time than the other two options. The costs could potentially be reduced by training nurse-led teams to insert totally implantable devices, as already happens with the other two devices. Totally implantable devices can be considered value for money depending on how people value avoiding complications and the quality-of-life benefits for patients.

Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs) are routinely used in the delivery of intravenous systemic anticancer therapy (SACT): peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), subcutaneously tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices) and totally implantable chest wall ports (Ports). This qualitative study, nested within a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, sought to explore patient acceptability and experiences of the three devices. DESIGN: Eight focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SETTING: Six outpatient cancer treatment centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two patients (20 female, mean age 61.7 years) who had taken part or were taking part in the broader trial. INTERVENTION: As part of the larger, randomised controlled trial, participants had been randomly assigned one of three CVADs for the administration of SACT. RESULTS: Attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their CVAD as part of their treatment and recovery. Participants with PICCs and Hickmans tended to compare their device favourably with peripheral cannulation. By comparison, participants with Ports consistently compared their device with PICCs and Hickmans, emphasising the perceived superiority of Ports. Ports were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences and preferences have not been systematically used to inform policy and practice regarding CVAD availability and selection. Our research identified patterns of patient device preferences that favoured Ports, although this was not universal. Results of this study could improve support for patients and offer greater scope for incorporating patient perspectives into decision-making processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44504648.

Adverse Childhood Experiences and Hospital-Treated Self-Harm.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been implicated in a range of negative health outcomes in adulthood, including increased suicide mortality. In this study, we explored the relationship between ACEs and hospital-treated self-harm. Specifically, we investigated whether those who had a history of repeat self-harm reported more ACEs than those who had self-harmed for the first time. Patients (n = 189) admitted to two hospitals in Glasgow (UK) following first-time (n = 41) or repeated (n = 148) self-harm completed psychosocial measures. Univariate analyses revealed that those presenting with repeat self-harm reported higher depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, intent to die, and ACEs, and lower dependent attachment style. However, only ACEs, along with female gender and depressive symptoms, significantly differentiated between the repeat self-harm group and the first-time self-harm group in the multivariate model. Controlling for all other psychosocial variables, participants who reported 4+ ACEs were significantly more likely to be in the repeat self-harm group as compared to those who experienced 0⁻3 ACEs. This finding highlights the pernicious effect of exposure to multiple ACEs. Further research is urgently required to better understand the mechanisms that explain this relationship. Clinicians should be aware of the extent of the association between ACEs and repeat self-harm.

Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti-cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs)-peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), skin-tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices), and implantable chest wall Ports (Ports)-are routinely used in the intravenous administration of anti-cancer treatment. These devices avoid the need for peripheral cannulation and allow for home delivery of treatment. Assessments of these devices have tended to focus on medical and economic factors, but there is increased interest in the importance of patient experiences and perspectives in this area. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise existing research regarding patient experiences of these CVADs to help clinicians guide, prepare, and support patients receiving CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer treatment. METHOD: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL research databases will be carried out along with a supplementary reference list search. This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published in peer-review journals, reporting some aspect(s) of patient experiences or perspectives regarding the use of PICC, Hickman, or Port CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer drugs. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included papers will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Relevant outcome data will be extracted from included studies and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will comprise thematic synthesis of quantitative studies, thematic synthesis of qualitative studies, and the aggregation of the two. Results will aim to offer an account of current understandings of patient experiences and perspective regarding PICC, Hickman-type, and Port devices in the context of anti-cancer treatment. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number: CRD42017065851 . This protocol was prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P) (Shamseer et al., BMJ 349: 2015).

Psychological processes and repeat suicidal behavior: a four-year prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Although suicidal behavior is a major public health concern, understanding of individually sensitive suicide risk mechanisms is limited. In this study, the authors investigated, for the first time, the utility of defeat and entrapment in predicting repeat suicidal behavior in a sample of suicide attempters. METHOD: Seventy patients hospitalized after a suicide attempt completed a range of clinical and psychological measures (depression, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, defeat, and entrapment) while in hospital. Four years later, a nationally linked database was used to determine who had been hospitalized again after a suicide attempt. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 24.6% of linked participants were readmitted to hospital after a suicidal attempt. In univariate logistic regression analyses, defeat and entrapment as well as depression, hopelessness, past suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation all predicted suicidal behavior over this interval. However, in the multivariate analysis, entrapment and past frequency of suicide attempts were the only significant predictors of suicidal behavior. CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study supports the utility of a new theoretical model in the prediction of suicidal behavior. Individually sensitive suicide risk processes like entrapment could usefully be targeted in treatment interventions to reduce the risk of repeat suicidal behavior in those who have been previously hospitalized after a suicide attempt.

Self-regulation of unattainable goals in suicide attempters: a two year prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although suicide is a global public health concern with approximately one million people dying by suicide annually, our knowledge of the proximal risk mechanisms is limited. In the present study, we investigated the utility of two proximal mechanisms (goal disengagement and goal reengagement) in the prediction of hospital-treated self-harm repetition in a sample of suicide attempters. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-seven patients hospitalised following a suicide attempt completed a range of clinical (depression, anxiety, hopelessness, suicidal ideation) and goal regulation measures (goal reengagement and disengagement) while in hospital. They were followed up two years later to determine whether they had been re-hospitalised with self-harm between baseline and the follow-up. RESULTS: Self-harm hospitalisation in the past 10 years, suicidal ideation and difficulty reengaging in new goals independently predicted self-harm two years later. In addition, among younger people, having difficulty re-engaging in new goals further predicted self-harm re-hospitalisation when disengagement from existing unattainable goals was also low. Conversely, the deleterious impact of low reengagement in older people was elevated when goal disengagement was also high. LIMITATIONS: Only hospital-treated self-harm and suicide were recorded at follow-up, episodes of less medically serious self-harm were not recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Suicidal behaviour is usefully conceptualised in terms of goal self-regulation following the experience of unattainable goals. Treatment interventions should target the self-regulation of goals among suicide attempters and clinicians should recognise that different regulation processes need to be addressed at different points across the lifespan.