This Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme is a response to high rates of lung cancer and respiratory diseases locally and aims to diagnose lung cancer at an earlier stage by proactive approach to those at high risk of lung cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the programme in terms of its likely effect on mortality from lung cancer and its delivery to deprived populations. Methods Persons aged 58-75 years, with a history of smoking or a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 1 according to general practice records were invited for lung health check in a community health hub setting. A detailed risk assessment and spirometry were performed in eligible patients. Those with a 5% or greater five-year risk of lung cancer were referred for a low dose CT 2 scan. Results A total of 4 566 subjects attended the appointment for risk assessment and 3 591 (79%) consented to data sharing. More than 80% of the patients were in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation. Of those attending, 63% underwent spirometry and 43% were recommended for a CT scan. A total of 25 cancers were diagnosed, of which 16 (64%) were stage I. Comparison with the national stage distribution implied that the programme was reducing lung cancer mortality by 22%. Conclusions 1 COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 2 CT, computed tomography 3 Community based proactive approaches to early diagnosis of lung cancer in health deprived regions are likely to be effective in early detection of lung cancer.

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre-and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film 1 booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (b coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film 1 booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (b coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film 1 booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).

BackgroundWomen who use drugs are extremely vulnerable to HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but studies on risk behaviours and HIV infection among female drug users are limited in Nepal.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted between September 2010 and May 2011, HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV infection were investigated among female drug users recruited in drop-in centres, parks and streets in the Kathmandu Valley. The participants completed face-to-face interviews for a structured questionnaire, HIV pre-test counselling, specimen collection for HIV test and they were provided with their results at post-test counselling.ResultsA total of 269 female drug users were recruited, of whom 28% (n = 77) were found HIV positive; the majority (78%, n = 211) being injecting drug users and aged below 25 years (57%, n = 155). Nearly half (n = 137) of the total participants had shared needles or syringes in the past month, and 131 and 102 participants were involved in commercial or casual sex respectively with only half or less of them having had used condoms in the last 12 months. In multivariate analysis the variables associated with HIV infection included: (a) older age; (b) history of school attendance; (c) frequency of sharing of injection instruments; and (d) unsafe sex with commercial or casual partners.ConclusionsHIV was highly prevalent among female drug users in the Kathmandu Valley, with its risk being strongly associated not only with unsafe injection practice but also with unsafe sexual behaviours. Awareness raising programmes and preventive measures such as condom distribution, needle or syringe exchange or methadone maintenance therapy should be urgently introduced in this neglected subpopulation.

The publisher regrets the author Darcy Fidoe was incorrectly spelt as Darcy Fideo.The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

The National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway recommends rapid progression from abnormal chest X-rays (CXRs) to CT. The impact of the more rapid reporting on the whole pathway is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of immediate reporting of CXRs requested by primary care by radiographers on the time to diagnosis of lung cancer.MethodPeople referred for CXR from primary care to a single acute district general hospital in London attended sessions that were prerandomised to either immediate radiographer (IR) reporting or standard radiographer (SR) reporting within 24 hours. CXRs were subsequently reported by radiologists blind to the radiographer reports to test the reliability of the radiographer report. Radiographer and local radiologist discordant cases were reviewed by thoracic radiologists, blinded to reporter.Results8682 CXRs were performed between 21 June 2017 and 4 August 2018, 4096 (47.2%) for IR and 4586 (52.8%) for SR. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 49, with 27 (55.1%) for IR. The median time from CXR to diagnosis of lung cancer for IR was 32 days (IQR 19, 70) compared with 63 days (IQR 29, 78) for SR (p=0.03).8258 CXRs (95.1%) were reported by both radiographers and local radiologists. In the 1361 (16.5%) with discordance, the reviewing thoracic radiologists were equally likely to agree with local radiologist and radiographer reports.ConclusionsImmediate reporting of CXRs from primary care reduces time to diagnosis of lung cancer by half, likely due to rapid progress to CT. Radiographer reports are comparable to local radiologist reports for accuracy.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial NumberISRCTN21818068. Registered on 20 June 2017.