Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership):Do they contribute to differences in cancer survival?

Background:There are wide international differences in 1-year cancer survival. The UK and Denmark perform poorly compared with other high-income countries with similar health care systems: Australia, Canada and Sweden have good cancer survival rates, Norway intermediate survival rates. The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of differences in cancer awareness and beliefs across these countries to identify where these might contribute to the pattern of survival.Methods:We carried out a population-based telephone interview survey of 19 079 men and women aged =50 years in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure.Results:Awareness that the risk of cancer increased with age was lower in the UK (14%), Canada (13%) and Australia (16%) but was higher in Denmark (25%), Norway (29%) and Sweden (38%). Symptom awareness was no lower in the UK and Denmark than other countries. Perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation were highest in the UK, in particular being worried about wasting the doctor's time (UK 34%; Canada 21%; Australia 14%; Denmark 12%; Norway 11%; Sweden 9%).Conclusion:The UK had low awareness of age-related risk and the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation, but symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries. Denmark had higher awareness of age-related risk and few perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation. This suggests that other factors must be involved in explaining Denmark's poor survival rates. In the UK, interventions that address barriers to prompt presentation in primary care should be developed and evaluated. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

The use of patient experience survey data by out-of-hours primary care services: a qualitative interview study

Background English National Quality Requirements mandate out-of-hours primary care services to routinely audit patient experience, but do not state how it should be done.

Objectives We explored how providers collect patient feedback data and use it to inform service provision. We also explored staff views on the utility of out-of-hours questions from the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS).

Methods A qualitative study was conducted with 31 staff (comprising service managers, general practitioners and administrators) from 11 out-of-hours primary care providers in England, UK. Staff responsible for patient experience audits within their service were sampled and data collected via face-to-face semistructured interviews.

Results Although most providers regularly audited their patients’ experiences by using patient surveys, many participants expressed a strong preference for additional qualitative feedback. Staff provided examples of small changes to service delivery resulting from patient feedback, but service-wide changes were not instigated. Perceptions that patients lacked sufficient understanding of the urgent care system in which out-of-hours primary care services operate were common and a barrier to using feedback to enable change. Participants recognised the value of using patient experience feedback to benchmark services, but perceived weaknesses in the out-of-hours items from the GPPS led them to question the validity of using these data for benchmarking in its current form.

Conclusions The lack of clarity around how out-of-hours providers should audit patient experience hinders the utility of the National Quality Requirements. Although surveys were common, patient feedback data had only a limited role in service change. Data derived from the GPPS may be used to benchmark service providers, but refinement of the out-of-hours items is needed.

Self-reported use of natural health products:A cross-sectional telephone survey in older Ontarians

Background: The self-reported use of natural health products (NHPs) (herbal products and vitamin and mineral supplements) has increased over the past decade in Canada. Because the elderly population might have comorbidities and concurrently administered medications, there is a need to explore the perceptions and behaviors associated with NHPs in this age group. Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the use of NHPs in a cohort of older Canadian residents and the characteristics, perceptions, and behaviors associated with NHP use. Methods: Survey participants aged =60 years were randomly selected from telephone listings in the area of greater Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Data were collected using a standardized computer-assisted telephone interview system. Self-reported data covering 7 domains were collected: (1) demographics; (2) self-reported 12-month NHP use; (3) reasons for NHP use; (4) self-reported 12-month prescription medication use; (5) expenditures on NHPs; (6) patient-reported adverse events and drug-NHP interactions; and (7) perceptions of physicians' attitudes regarding NHPs. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the characteristics of NHP users with those of nonusers and to assess the characteristics of NHP users across these 7 domains. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to determine the demographic variables that might be associated with NHP user status. Results: Of 2528 persons identified as age =60 years, 1206 (48%) completed the telephone interview. Six hundred sixteen of these respondents (51%) reported the use of =1 NHP during the previous 12 months. On the initial univariate analysis, younger age and higher income were significantly associated with reporting NHP use (mean age, users vs nonusers, 71.1 vs 72.7 years, respectively; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P <0.001; income more than Can $26,000 was 28% and 22% in users and nonusers, respectively; P = 0.028). One hundred seventy of 616 users (28%) used an NHP to treat the same condition for which they were concurrently receiving a prescription medication, and 43 (25%) had not informed their physicians about their NHP use. Patients' characteristics such as sex, education, smoking status, and self-reported health status did not differ significantly between users and nonusers. In individuals who regularly spent money to purchase NHPs (n = 394), the mean cost was $20.38/mo. NHP expenditure was not significantly associated with age, sex, or income. Conclusion: Based on these findings, a substantial proportion of those Ontarians aged =60 years reported NHP use, and there is a need for greater communication with physicians to avoid potential drug-NHP interactions. © 2009 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.