PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Bankhead

Publications and source records attributed to C Bankhead.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

A Bayesian approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions, a letter and a flag, aimed at improving attendance for breast screening among (i) all women invited for breast screening and (ii) non-attenders. METHODS: A probabilistic decision analytic model was developed using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation implemented in WinBUGS. The model was populated using economic and effectiveness data collected alongside two randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: For all women invited, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the letter compared with no intervention is 27 pounds per additional attendance, and the ICER for the combined letter and flag intervention compared to the letter alone is 171 pounds. The corresponding ICERs for non-attenders are 41 pounds and 90 pounds. The flag intervention is an inefficient option in both settings. A large proportion of the costs fall on the practices (25-67%), depending on the intervention and target population. The total costs incurred do not, however, seem prohibitive. Expected value of perfect information suggests that there is greater value in carrying out further research on the intervention implemented among all women invited for breast screening rather than on non-attenders. CONCLUSIONS: The flag intervention alone does not appear to be an efficient option. The choice between the letter and both interventions combined is subjective, depending on the willingness to pay for an additional screening attendance.

Bayes Theorem↗
PubMed2005

The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review.

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible negative psychological impact of the cancer screening programmes offered in the UK. This review aims to assess the extent of and factors associated with the adverse psychological consequences of mammographic screening. Fifty-four papers from 13 countries were identified, a majority of which were published after 1990, coinciding more or less with the onset of routine mammographic screening. The results report that mammographic screening does not appear to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram and are subsequently placed on routine recall. However, women who have further investigations following their routine mammogram experience significant anxiety in the short term, and possibly in the long term. The nature and extent of the further investigation that women are exposed to during mammographic screening determines the intensity of the psychological impact. Factors associated with the adverse psychological impact of mammographic screening included: social demographic factors of younger age, lower education, living in urban areas, manual occupation, and one or no children; cancer screening factors of dissatisfaction with information and communication during screening process, waiting time between recall letter and recall appointment, pain experienced during the mammographic screening procedures, and previous false positive result; and cancer worry factors including fear of cancer and greater perceived risk of breast cancer. Difficulties in measuring the psychological impact of screening are discussed, and methods of alleviating the negative psychological outcomes are suggested.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2001

New developments in genetics-knowledge, attitudes and information needs of practice nurses.

BACKGROUND: In response to increased referrals to geneticists and the predicted patient demand for genetic counselling, it has been proposed that some genetics services should be provided in primary care. Practice nurses are ideally placed to collect family history information and advise patients accordingly in new patient, family planning, well women/men and chronic disease clinics, but little is known about their knowledge, skills and attitudes towards providing genetic advice. OBJECTIVES: The survey aimed to measure the current situation with regard to: the prevalence of family history recording by practice nurses; confidence in collecting and acting upon family history; and practice nurses' knowledge about familial disorders and genetics. It also investigated what practice nurses think their role should be in relation to the delivery of genetic services; their educational needs; and the most appropriate ways of delivering training/support. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was carried out of all practices nurses (n = 909) in four Health Authorities in England (Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham and North Nottinghamshire) and one Health Board in Scotland (Lothian). Analyses were primarily descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 600 nurses (response rate = 66.0%) returned a completed questionnaire. Ninety-six per cent of practice nurses reported that they routinely collect family history information. Over half of the respondents had been consulted in the previous 3 months by patients with a worry about family history of cancer. Approximately 60% of nurses felt confident about collecting the relevant details regarding a family history of breast cancer but felt less confident in collecting the information regarding familial colorectal cancer. Nurses were also unsure how to proceed, with over a third of nurses referring patients to the GP even if they thought the patient was at population risk or, conversely, not referring those that they thought were at considerably higher risk to the GP. There was a reported need for education about familial disease in general and overall agreement that nurses could play a role in genetics in primary care. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of considerable activity from practice nurses regarding routine collection of family history. There is a need for further education for practice nurses regarding family history information and the new genetics so that this information is managed appropriately.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2001

Cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions based in primary care aimed at increasing uptake of breast screening. SETTING: 24 General practices with low uptake in the second round of screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, UK. Participants were all women registered with these practices and eligible for screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial cluster randomised controlled trial, with practices randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after the practices had been screened and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 6,133 Women were included: 1,721 control; 1,818 letter; 1,232 flag; 1,362 both interventions. Attendance data were obtained for 5,732 (93%) women. The two interventions independently increased breast screening uptake in a logistic regression model adjusted for clustering, with the flag (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.79; p=0.0019) marginally more effective than the letter (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.64; p=0.015). Health service costs per additional attendance were 26 pounds (letter) and 41 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Although both interventions increased attendance for breast screening, the letter was the more cost-effective. Any decision to implement both interventions rather than just the letter will depend on whether the additional (41 pounds) costs are judged worthwhile in terms of the gains in breast screening uptake.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2001

Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. SETTING: 13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 1,158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1,148 (99%) of the 1,158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/ additional attendance were 35 pounds (letter) and 65 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Among recent non-attenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Oral contraceptives and rheumatoid arthritis: results from a primary care-based incident case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: The possibility that oral contraceptives offer a protective effect against the development of rheumatoid arthritis is still contentious. Of the 17 studies investigating this association, 11 have found a protective effect, and 6 have not. These differences are probably attributable to either selection or information biases in a subset of studies, although the exact reason is unknown. To overcome the methodological problems inherent in the design of previous studies, we have conducted a population-based case-control study. METHODS: Women who were incident cases of inflammatory polyarthritis, defined as swelling of at least two joint areas lasting at least 4 weeks, were recruited directly from primary care and compared with age-matched women from the same population. RESULTS: Cases and controls reported a similar level of "ever use" of oral contraceptives, adjusted odds ratio = 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.47, 1.64). The cases were, however, less likely to report using oral contraceptives at the time of onset, adjusted odds ratio = 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.06, 0.85). Similar results were observed for cases who satisfied the criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and cases who did not. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that only current oral contraceptive use protects against the development of inflammatory polyarthritis.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Do new cases of rheumatoid arthritis cluster in time or in space?

OBJECTIVES: To examine for evidence of clustering in time, in space and in space/time in the occurrence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SETTING: A population-based incidence register of RA in the East Anglian region of the UK: population size 413,000. SUBJECTS: In all 687 new cases of inflammatory joint disease registered between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1994 were studied. Population data were obtained from postcode areas by age and sex. ANALYSIS: Time trend analysis was conducted over the first 36 months and observed and expected distributions compared. Spatial clustering was based on comparison of observed distribution using map grid references to random expectation based on simulation. A similar procedure was undertaken for time/space clustering. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a time trend. There was only modest evidence of spatial clustering with non-random distribution observed in one area but there was no evidence of time/space clustering. CONCLUSION: Although a viral aetiology is the strongest candidate for RA, no evidence of a localized event in time was associated with disease development in this population.

Adolescent↗