If They'd Said You Should Only Drink Five Units I'd Have Listened: A Mixed Methods Study of Alcohol Consumption Following a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: As part of a wider study describing the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis on lifestyle behaviours, this paper describes the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis on alcohol consumption and factors influencing consumption. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey of 140 people (138 women) and interviews with 21 women diagnosed with breast cancer in the last 10 years. RESULTS: Of the 100 survey participants who drank alcohol 25% were drinking at increasing or higher risk levels and 17% strongly wanted to change their drinking behaviour. The habitual aspects of alcohol consumption were the strongest predictor of current alcohol consumption behaviours. Social norms and perceptions about conflicting information were substantial barriers to change. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors need accurate information about the risks of alcohol consumption and guidelines in order to make informed decisions about making changes to their behaviour. Interventions to support breast cancer survivors to reduce alcohol consumption need to focus on the development of healthy habits and may benefit from a focus which includes partners and friends.

The perceptions and experiences of community nurses and patients towards shared decision-making in the home setting: An integrative review.

AIM: To explore patients' and community nurses' perceptions and experiences of shared decision-making in the home. DESIGN: Integrative review. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Psycinfo, Medline and Social Services Abstracts were searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods papers published between 1 December 2001 and 31 October 2023. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken using defined inclusion criteria. The included papers were appraised for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. Relevant data were extracted and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fourteen papers comprising 13 research studies were included. Patients attached great importance to their right to be involved in decision-making and noted feeling valued as a unique individual. Communication and trust between the patient and nurse were perceived as fundamental. However, shared decision-making does not always occur in practice. Nurses described tension in managing patients' involvement in decision-making. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that although patients and community nurses appreciate participating in shared decision-making within the home, there are obstacles to achieving a collaborative process. This is especially relevant when there are fundamentally different perspectives on the decision being made. More research is needed to gain further understanding of how shared decision-making plays out in practice and to understand the tensions that patients and nurses may experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This paper argues that shared decision-making is more than the development of a relationship where the patient can express their views (though of course, this is important). Shared decision-making requires acknowledgement that the patient has the right to full information and should be empowered to choose between options. Nurses should not assume that shared decision-making in community nursing is easy to facilitate and should recognize the tensions that might exist when true patient choice is enabled. IMPACT: This paper demonstrates how the idea of shared decision-making needs to be explored in the light of everyday practice so that challenges and barriers can be overcome. In particular, the tensions that arise when patients and nurses do not share the same perspective. This paper speaks to the potential of a gap surrounding shared decision-making in theory and how it plays out in practice. REPORTING METHOD: The reporting of this review was guided by the 2020 guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Page et al., 2021). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review was carried out as part of a wider study for which service users have been consulted.

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.

Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice's usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon. SETTING: Thirty NHS general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites. MEASURES: Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated. RESULTS: 866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11669964.

Identifying determinants of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy following breast cancer: A systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: In oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, daily oral adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years significantly reduces risks of recurrence and breast cancer-specific mortality. However, many women are poorly adherent to ET. Development of effective adherence support requires comprehensive understanding of influences on adherence. We undertook an umbrella review to identify determinants of ET adherence. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane and PROSPERO (inception to 08/2022) to identify systematic reviews on factors influencing ET adherence. Abstracted determinants were mapped to the World Health Organization's dimensions of adherence. Reviews were quality appraised and overlap assessed. RESULTS: Of 5732 citations screened, 17 reviews were eligible (9 quantitative primary studies; 4 qualitative primary studies; 4 qualitative or quantitative studies) including 215 primary papers. All five WHO dimensions influenced ET non-adherence: The most consistently identified non-adherence determinants were patient-related factors (e.g. lower perceived ET necessity, more treatment concerns, perceptions of ET 'cons' vs. 'pros'). Healthcare system/healthcare professional-related factors (e.g. perceived lower quality health professional interaction/relationship) were also important and, to a somewhat lesser extent, socio-economic factors (e.g. lower levels of social/economic/material support). Evidence was more mixed for medication-related and condition-related factors, but several may be relevant (e.g. experiencing side-effects, cost). Potentially modifiable factors are more influential than non-modifiable/fixed factors (e.g. patient characteristics). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-base on ET adherence determinants is extensive. Future empirical studies should focus on less well-researched areas and settings. The determinants themselves are numerous and complex in indicating that adherence support should be multifaceted, addressing multiple determinants.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). INTERVENTION: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Development of the HT&Me intervention to support women with breast cancer to adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy and improve quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Approximately 80% of breast cancers are oestrogen receptor positive (ER+). Patients treated surgically are usually recommended adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for 5-10 years. AET significantly reduces recurrence, but up to 50% of women do not take it as prescribed. OBJECTIVE: To co-design and develop an intervention to support AET adherence and improve health-related quality-of-life (QoL) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: Design and development of the HT&Me intervention took a person-based approach and was guided by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, based on evidence and underpinned by theory. Literature reviews, behavioural analysis, and extensive key stakeholder involvement informed 'guiding principles' and the intervention logic model. Using co-design principles, a prototype intervention was developed and refined. RESULTS: The blended tailored HT&Me intervention supports women to self-manage their AET. It comprises initial and follow-up consultations with a trained nurse, supported with an animation video, a web-app and ongoing motivational 'nudge' messages. It addresses perceptual (e.g. doubts about necessity, treatment concerns) and practical (e.g. forgetting) barriers to adherence and provides information, support and behaviour change techniques to improve QoL. Iterative patient feedback maximised feasibility, acceptability, and likelihood of maintaining adherence; health professional feedback maximised likelihood of scalability. CONCLUSIONS: HT&Me has been systematically and rigorously developed to promote AET adherence and improve QoL, and is complemented with a logic model documenting hypothesized mechanisms of action. An ongoing feasibility trial will inform a future randomised control trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Associations of CTCF and FOXA1 with androgen and IGF pathways in men with localized prostate cancer.

AIMS: To examine associations between the transcription factors CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) and forkhead box protein A1 (FOXA1) and the androgen receptor (AR) and their association with components of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-pathway in a cohort of men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Using prostate tissue samples collected during the Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) trial (N = 70 to 92, depending on section availability), we assessed the abundance of CTCF, FOXA1, AR, IGFIR, p-mTOR, PTEN and IGFBP-2 proteins using a modified version of the Allred scoring system. Validation studies were performed using large, publicly available datasets (TCGA) (N = 489). RESULTS: We identified a strong correlation between CTCF and AR staining with benign prostate tissue. CTCF also strongly associated with the IGFIR, with PTEN and with phospho-mTOR. FOXA1 was also correlated with staining for the IGF-IR, with IGFBP-2 and with staining for activated phosphor-mTOR. The staining for the IGF-IR was strongly correlated with the AR. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasise the close and complex links between the endocrine controls, well known to play an important role in prostate cancer, and the transcription factors implicated by the recent genetic evidence.

Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT): study protocol for a feasibility factorial randomized controlled trial in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies have shown that moderate intensity physical activity can reduce risk of progression and cancer-specific mortality in participants with prostate cancer. Epidemiological studies have also shown participants taking metformin to have a reduced risk of prostate cancer. However, data from randomised controlled trials supporting the use of these interventions are limited. The Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial examines that feasibility of randomising participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer to interventions that modify physical activity and blood glucose levels. The primary outcomes are randomisation rates and adherence to the interventions over 6 months. The secondary outcomes include intervention tolerability and retention rates, measures of insulin-like growth factor I, prostate-specific antigen, physical activity, symptom-reporting, and quality of life. METHODS: Participants are randomised in a 2 × 2 factorial design to both a physical activity (brisk walking or control) and a pharmacological (metformin or control) intervention. Participants perform the interventions for 6 months with final measures collected at 12 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our trial will determine whether participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, who are scheduled for radical treatments or being monitored for signs of cancer progression, can be randomised to a 6 months physical activity and metformin intervention. The findings from our trial will inform a larger trial powered to examine the clinical benefits of these interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prostate Cancer Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT) is registered on the ISRCTN registry, reference number ISRCTN13543667 . Date of registration 2nd August 2018-retrospectively registered. First participant was recruited on 11th September 2018.