There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.

Objectives To develop two new models of expedited partner therapy for the UK, and evaluate them for feasibility, acceptability and preliminary outcome estimates to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods Two models of expedited partner therapy (APTHotline and APTPharmacy), known as 'Accelerated Partner Therapy' (APT) were developed. A nonrandomised comparative study was conducted of the two APT models and routine partner notification (PN), in which the index patient chose the PN option for his/her partner(s) in two contrasting clinics. Results The proportion of contactable partners treated when routine PN was chosen was 42/117 (36%) and was significantly higher if either APT option was chosen: APTHotline 80/135 (59%), p¼0.003; APTPharmacy 29/44 (66%) p¼0.001. However, partner treatment was often achieved through other routes. Although 40e60% of partners in APT groups returned urine samples for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, almost none accessed HIV and syphilis testing. APT options appear to facilitate faster treatment of sex partners than routine PN. Preferences and recruitment rates varied between sites, related to staff satisfaction with existing routine PN; approach to consent; and possibly, characteristics of local populations. Conclusions Both methods of APT were feasible and acceptable to many patients and led to higher rates of partner treatment than routine PN. Preferences and recruitment rates varied greatly between settings, suggesting that organisational and cultural factors may have an important impact on the feasibility of an RCT and on outcomes. Mindful of these factors, it is proposed that APT should now be evaluated in a cluster RCT.

BackgroundProstate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient’s play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men’s attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening.MethodsSystematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men’s perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016.FindingsSixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18–89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs.ConclusionsMen are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

No abstract