Gender comparisons in non-acute cardiac symptom recognition and subsequent help-seeking decisions: a mixed methods study protocol

Introduction: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is one of the leading causes of death in both men and women worldwide. Despite the common misconception that CHD is a ‘man's disease’, it is now well accepted that women endure worse clinical outcomes than men following CHD-related events. A number of studies have explored whether or not gender differences exist in patients presenting with CHD, and specifically whether women delay seeking help for cardiac conditions. UK and overseas studies on help-seeking for emergency cardiac events are contradictory, yet suggest that women often delay help-seeking. In addition, no studies have looked at presumed cardiac symptoms outside an emergency situation. Given the lack of understanding in this area, an explorative qualitative study on the gender differences in help-seeking for a non-emergency cardiac events is needed. Methods and analysis: A purposive sample of 20–30 participants of different ethnic backgrounds and ages attending a rapid access chest pain clinic will be recruited to achieve saturation. Semistructured interviews focusing on help-seeking decision-making for apparent cardiac symptoms will be undertaken. Interview data will be analysed thematically using qualitative software (NVivo) to understand any similarities and differences between the way men and women construct help-seeking. Findings will also be used to inform the preliminary development of a cardiac help-seeking intentions questionnaire. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approvals were sought and granted. Namely, the University of Westminster (sponsor) and St Georges NHS Trust REC, and the Trust Research and Development Office granted approval to host the study on the Queen Mary's Roehampton site. The study is low risk, with interviews being conducted on hospital premises during working hours. Investigators will disseminate findings via presentations and publications. Participants will receive a written summary of the key findings.

Using a whole person approach to support people with cancer: a longitudinal, mixed methods service evaluation

Introduction: Improved models of care are needed to meet all the support needs of people with cancer, which encompass psychological, emotional, physical, spiritual, sexual, occupational, social and existential needs. The aim of this paper is to (1) evaluate short and long-term impacts of using a whole person approach to support people with cancer on the Living Well with the Impact of Cancer Course (LWC); (2) use these data to inform strategic decisions about future service provision at Penny Brohn UK. Methods: Longitudinal mixed-methods service evaluation (n=135). Data collected included health related quality of life (HRQoL) (FACIT-SpEx); Concerns (types and severity - MYCaW); lifestyle behaviour (bespoke questionnaire) and participants’ experiences over 12 months post course. Results: Statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline - 12 months in severity of MYCaW Concerns (n=64; p<0.000) and mean total HRQoL (n=66; p<0.000). The majority of MYCaW concerns were ‘psychological and emotional’ and about participants’ wellbeing. Spiritual, emotional and functional wellbeing contributed most to HRQoL improvements at 12 months. Barriers to maintaining healthy lifestyle changes included lack of support from family and friends, time constraints, and returning to work. 3-6 months post-course was identified as the time when more support was most likely to be needed. Conclusions: Using a whole person approach for the LWC enabled the needs of participants to be met, and statistically and clinically significant improvements in HRQoL and MYCaW Concerns were reported. Qualitative data analysis explored how experiencing whole person support enabled participants to make and sustain healthy lifestyle changes associated with improved survivorship. Barriers experienced to making health behaviour change were also identified. These data then informed wider and more person-centred clinical provision to increase the maintenance of positive long-term behaviour changes. Comparison of whole person approaches to cancer treatment and support and standard care are now urgently needed.