Methods matter: computational modelling in public health policy and planning

This work is aimed at understanding and unifying information on epidemiological modelling methods and how those methods relate to public policy addressing human health, specifically in the context of infectious disease prevention, pandemic planning, and health behaviour change. This thesis employs multiple qualitative and quantitative methods, and presents as a manuscript of several individual, data-driven projects that are combined in a narrative arc. The first chapter introduces the scope and complexity of this interdisciplinary undertaking, describing several topical intersections of importance. The second chapter begins the presentation of original data, and describes in detail two exercises in computational epidemiological modelling pertinent to pandemic influenza planning and policy, and progresses in the next chapter to present additional original data on how the confidence of the public in modelling methodology may have an effect on their planned health behaviour change as recommended in public health policy. The thesis narrative continues in the final data-driven chapter to describe how health policymakers use modelling methods and scientific evidence to inform and construct health policies for the prevention of infectious diseases, and concludes with a narrative chapter that evaluates the breadth of this data and recommends strategies for the optimal use of modelling methodologies when informing public health policy in applied public health scenarios.

An examination of verbal descriptors of cancer-induced bone pain and neuropathic cancer pain

Aims: The aim of the thesis was to identify verbal descriptors of cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) and neuropathic cancer pain (NCP). An examination of the verbal descriptors associated with these two pain syndromes further considered the relationship between common verbal descriptors, cancer type, performance status and analgesia. Methods: The project was conducted in two phases; Phase one was a systematic review of the literature to examine current evidence of verbal descriptors in CIBP and NCP. Phase two utilised secondary data analysis methodology. Data from 120 patients with confirmed CIBP and 61 patients with confirmed NCP were deemed eligible for entry into a de novo database for secondary analysis. Key descriptive data were considered such as gender, ECOG and pain scores to characterise the patient population. Verbal descriptors of CIBP and NCP were considered in detail across the secondary de novo database. Results: Gender was not identified as a diagnostic characteristic of CIBP and NCP with similar distribution across prevalence of pain reporting and also pain severity. Patients with breast (n=52,43.3%), prostate (n=35,29.2%) and lung (n=14,11.7%) cancer were found to be at an increased risk of CIBP. Those with NCP more was found more commonly among patients with breast cancer (n=21,34.4%). Patients with CIBP were found to have an ECOG performance of 1 (n=49, 40.8%) or 2 (n=43, 35.8%) which was lower than those with NCP with an ECOG of 0 (n=32, 52.5%) or 2 (n=18, 29.5%). Comparisons were made across analgesia and treatment options for CIBP and NCP. Patients with CIBP received a greater variety of treatment options including bisphosphonates and radiotherapy while patients with NCP were more commonly treated with analgesia alone. Patients with CIBP and NCP were taking strong opioids, however those with NCP (n=45, 73.8%) were more likely to utilise strong opioids than those with CIBP (n=61, 50.8%). It was noted that those with NCP required a daily morphine equivalence of almost 50% higher than those with CIBP. Average consumption of opioids was 155.6mg, for patients with NCP, compared to 76mg in patients with CIBP. Common verbal descriptors of CIBP and NCP were identified. The most common verbal descriptors for CIBP were aching, gnawing and throbbing and the most common verbal descriptors of NCP were aching, tender and sharp. Of the most common 6 descriptors for CIBP and NCP only one descriptor was unique to each pain type, gnawing for CIBP and stabbing for NCP. Conclusions: Patients with CIBP and NCP use similar verbal descriptors to characterise their pain with gnawing being unique to CIBP and stabbing being unique to NCP in the data considered within project. Further research is required to explore verbal descriptors which are both common and unique to CIBP and NCP. Further exploration of verbal descriptors would assist development of a comprehensive pain assessment tool which would enhance pain assessment for nurses, clinicians and patients.