BackgroundThere is a paucity of methodologically robust vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention trials. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a VR trial of women with breast cancer to inform the development of a larger interventional study.MethodsWomen were recruited in Scotland and randomised to either a case management VR service or to usual care. Data were collected on eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates to assess trial feasibility, and interviews conducted to determine trial acceptability. Sick leave days (primary outcome) were self-reported via postal questionnaire every 4 weeks during the first 6 months post-surgery and at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were change in employment pattern, quality of life and fatigue.ResultsOf the 1,114 women assessed for eligibility, 163 (15%) were eligible. The main reason for ineligibility was age (>65 years, n = 637, 67%). Of those eligible, 111 (68%) received study information, of which 23 (21%) consented to participate in the study. Data for 18 (78%) women were analysed (intervention: n = 7; control: n = 11). Participants in the intervention group reported, on average, 53 fewer days of sick leave over the first 6 months post-surgery than those in the control group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.122; 95% confidence interval −15.8, 122.0). No statistically significant differences were found for secondary outcomes. Interviews with trial participants indicated that trial procedures, including recruitment, randomisation and research instruments, were acceptable.ConclusionsConducting a pragmatic trial of effectiveness of a VR intervention among cancer survivors is both feasible and acceptable, but more research about the exact components of a VR intervention and choice of outcomes to measure effectiveness is required. VR to assist breast cancer patients in the return to work process is an important component of cancer survivorship plans.Trial registrationISRCTN29666484

Background:People with colorectal cancer have impaired quality of life (QoL). We investigated what factors were most highly associated with it.Methods:Four hundred and ninety-six people with colorectal cancer completed questionnaires about QoL, functioning, symptoms, co-morbidity, cognitions and personal and social factors. Disease, treatment and co-morbidity data were abstracted from case notes. Multiple linear regression identified modifiable and unmodifiable factors independently predictive of global quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30).Results:Of unmodifiable factors, female sex (P<0.001), more self-reported co-morbidities (P=0.006) and metastases at diagnosis (P=0.036) significantly predicted poorer QoL, but explained little of the variability in the model (R2=0.064). Adding modifiable factors, poorer role (P<0.001) and social functioning (P=0.003), fatigue (P=0.001), dyspnoea (P=0.001), anorexia (P<0.001), depression (P<0.001) and worse perceived consequences (P=0.013) improved the model fit considerably (R2=0.574). Omitting functioning subscales resulted in recent diagnosis (P=0.002), lower perceived personal control (P=0.020) and travel difficulties (P<0.001) becoming significant predictors.Conclusion:Most factors affecting QoL are modifiable, especially symptoms (fatigue, anorexia, dyspnoea) and depression. Beliefs about illness are also important. Unmodifiable factors, including metastatic (or unstaged) disease at diagnosis, have less impact. There appears to be potential for interventions to improve QoL in patients with colorectal cancer.

BackgroundContext shapes the effectiveness of knowledge implementation and influences health improvement. Successful healthcare quality improvement (QI) initiatives frequently fail to transfer to different settings, with local contextual factors often cited as the cause. Understanding and overcoming contextual barriers is therefore crucial to implementing effective improvement; yet context is still poorly understood. There is a paucity of information on the mechanisms underlying how and why QI projects succeed or fail in given settings. A realist review of empirical studies of healthcare QI initiatives will be undertaken to examine the influence and impact of contextual factors on quality improvement in healthcare settings and explore whether QI initiatives can work in all contexts.MethodsThe review will explore which contextual factors are important, and how, why, when and for whom they are important, within varied settings. The dynamic nature of context and change over time will be explored by examining which aspects of context impact at key points in the improvement trajectory. The review will also consider the influence of context on improvement outcomes (provider- and patient-level), spread and sustainability. The review process will follow five iterative steps: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will consult with experts and stakeholders in the early stages to focus the review and develop a programme theory consisting of explanatory ‘context–mechanism–outcome’ configurations. Searches for primary evidence will be conducted iteratively. Data will be extracted and tested against the programme theory. A review advisory group will oversee the review process. Review findings will follow RAMESES guidelines and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publications.DiscussionThe review will update and consolidate evidence on the contextual conditions for effective improvement and distil new knowledge to inform the design and development of context-sensitive QI initiatives. This review ties in with the study of improvement programmes as vehicles of change and the development of an evidence base around healthcare improvement by addressing whether QI initiatives can work in all contexts.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017062135

Levels of anxiety caseness were similar to those of non-clinical samples, but depression caseness was higher, particularly in those who had received neo-adjuvant radiotherapy. Most factors associated with possible or probable depression may be modified with appropriate intervention.

Background:British 5-year survival from colorectal cancer (CRC) is below the European average, but the reasons are unclear. This study explored if longer provider delays (time from presentation to treatment) were associated with more advanced stage disease at diagnosis and poorer survival.Methods:Data on 958 people with CRC were linked with the Scottish Cancer Registry, the Scottish Death Registry and the acute hospital discharge (SMR01) dataset. Time from first presentation in primary care to first treatment, disease stage at diagnosis and survival time from date of first presentation in primary care were determined. Logistic regression and Cox survival analyses, both with a restricted cubic spline, were used to model stage and survival, respectively, following sequential adjustment of patient and tumour factors.Results:On univariate analysis, those with <4 weeks from first presentation in primary care to treatment had more advanced disease at diagnosis and the poorest prognosis. Treatment delays between 4 and 34 weeks were associated with earlier stage (with the lowest odds ratio occurring at 20 weeks) and better survival (with the lowest hazard ratio occurring at 16 weeks). Provider delays beyond 34 weeks were associated with more advanced disease at diagnosis, but not increased mortality. Following adjustment for patient, tumour factors, emergency admissions and symptoms and signs, no significant relationship between provider delay and stage at diagnosis or survival from CRC was found.Conclusions:Although allowing for a nonlinear relationship and important confounders, moderately long provider delays did not impact adversely on cancer outcomes. Delays are undesirable because they cause anxiety; this may be fuelled by government targets and health campaigns stressing the importance of very prompt cancer diagnosis. Our findings should reassure patients. They suggest that a health service's primary emphasis should be on quality and outcomes rather than on time to treatment.