A multilevel investigation of inequalities in clinical and psychosocial outcomes for women after breast cancer

Background In Australia, breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting Australian women. Inequalities in clinical and psychosocial outcomes have existed for some time, affecting particularly women from rural areas and from areas of disadvantage. We have a limited understanding of how individual and area-level factors are related to each other, and their associations with survival and other clinical and psychosocial outcomes. Methods/Design This study will examine associations between breast cancer recurrence, survival and psychosocial outcomes (e.g. distress, unmet supportive care needs, quality of life). The study will use an innovative multilevel approach using area-level factors simultaneously with detailed individual-level factors to assess the relative importance of remoteness, socioeconomic and demographic factors, diagnostic and treatment pathways and processes, and supportive care utilization to clinical and psychosocial outcomes. The study will use telephone and self-administered questionnaires to collect individual-level data from approximately 3, 300 women ascertained from the Queensland Cancer Registry diagnosed with invasive breast cancer residing in 478 Statistical Local Areas Queensland in 2011 and 2012. Area-level data will be sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. Geo-coding and spatial technology will be used to calculate road travel distances from patients' residence to diagnostic and treatment centres. Data analysis will include a combination of standard empirical procedures and multilevel modelling. Discussion The study will address the critical question of: what are the individual- or area-level factors associated with inequalities in outcomes from breast cancer? The findings will provide health care providers and policy makers with targeted information to improve the management of women with breast cancer, and inform the development of strategies to improve psychosocial care for women with breast cancer.

Methodological challenges when estimating the effects of season and seasonal exposures on birth outcomes

Background Many previous studies have found seasonal patterns in birth outcomes, but with little agreement about which season poses the highest risk. Some of the heterogeneity between studies may be explained by a previously unknown bias. The bias occurs in retrospective cohorts which include all births occurring within a fixed start and end date, which means shorter pregnancies are missed at the start of the study, and longer pregnancies are missed at the end. Our objective was to show the potential size of this bias and how to avoid it. Methods To demonstrate the bias we simulated a retrospective birth cohort with no seasonal pattern in gestation and used a range of cohort end dates. As a real example, we used a cohort of 114,063 singleton births in Brisbane between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2009 and examined the bias when estimating changes in gestation length associated with season (using month of conception) and a seasonal exposure (temperature). We used survival analyses with temperature as a time-dependent variable. Results We found strong artificial seasonal patterns in gestation length by month of conception, which depended on the end date of the study. The bias was avoided when the day and month of the start date was just before the day and month of the end date (regardless of year), so that the longer gestations at the start of the study were balanced by the shorter gestations at the end. After removing the fixed cohort bias there was a noticeable change in the effect of temperature on gestation length. The adjusted hazard ratios were flatter at the extremes of temperature but steeper between 15 and 25°C. Conclusions Studies using retrospective birth cohorts should account for the fixed cohort bias by removing selected births to get unbiased estimates of seasonal health effects.

Food insecurity among Australian children : potential determinants, health and developmental consequences

Children in food-insecure households may be at risk of poor health, developmental or behavioural problems. This study investigated the associations between food insecurity, potential determinants and health and developmental outcomes among children. Data on household food security, socio-demographic characteristics and children’s weight, health and behaviour were collected from households with children aged 3–17 years in socioeconomically disadvantaged suburbs by mail survey using proxy-parental reports (185 households). Data were analysed using logistic regression. Approximately one-in-three households (34%) were food insecure. Low household income was associated with an increased risk of food insecurity [odds ratio (OR), 16.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.52–74.47]. Children with a parent born outside of Australia were less likely to experience food insecurity (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19–0.93). Children in food-insecure households were more likely to miss days from school or activities (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.46–8.54) and were more likely to have borderline or atypical emotional symptoms (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.11–5.38) or behavioural difficulties (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.04–5.33). Food insecurity may be prevalent among socioeconomically disadvantaged households with children. The potential developmental consequences of food insecurity during childhood may result in serious adverse health and social implications.

A randomised trial of a psychosocial intervention for cancer patients integrated into routine care: The PROMPT study (promoting optimal outcomes in mood through tailored psychosocial therapies)

Background Despite evidence that up to 35% of patients with cancer experience significant distress, access to effective psychosocial care is limited by lack of systematic approaches to assessment, a paucity of psychosocial services, and patient reluctance to accept treatment either because of perceived stigma or difficulties with access to specialist psycho-oncology services due to isolation or disease burden. This paper presents an overview of a randomised study to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychosocial Intervention delivered by health professionals in cancer care who undergo focused training and participate in clinical supervision. Methods/design Health professionals from the disciplines of nursing, occupational therapy, speech pathology, dietetics, physiotherapy or radiation therapy will participate in training to deliver the psychosocial Intervention focusing on core concepts of supportive-expressive, cognitive and dignity-conserving care. Health professional training will consist of completion of a self-directed manual and participation in a skills development session. Participating health professionals will be supported through structured clinical supervision whilst delivering the Intervention. In the stepped wedge design each of the 5 participating clinical sites will be allocated in random order from Control condition to Training then delivery of the Intervention. A total of 600 patients will be recruited across all sites. Based on level of distress or risk factors eligible patients will receive up to 4 sessions, each of up to 30 minutes in length, delivered face-to-face or by telephone. Participants will be assessed at baseline and 10-week follow-up. Patient outcome measures include anxiety and depression, quality of life, unmet psychological and supportive care needs. Health professional measures include psychological morbidity, stress and burnout. Process evaluation will be conducted to assess perceptions of participation in the study and the factors that may promote translation of learning into practice. Discussion This study will provide important information about the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychological Intervention for patients with cancer and the potential to prevent development of significant distress in patients considered at risk. It will yield data about the feasibility of this model of care in routine clinical practice and identify enablers and barriers to its systematic implementation in cancer settings.

A mixed-method study to investigate the relationship between the number of social support people present during labour, women’s perceptions and birth outcomes

The birth of a baby is a significant event for women and their families, with the event being influenced by the prevailing social and cultural context. Historically, women throughout the world have given birth at home assisted by other women who helped them cope with the stress of labour and birth. In the middle of the twentieth century, the togetherness, caring and support that were provided within the social and cultural context of childbirth began to change; women in most developed countries, and to some extent in developing countries, laboured and gave birth in institutions that isolated them from the support of family and friends. This practice is referred to as the medical model of childbirth and, over time, birthing within this model has come to be viewed by women as a dehumanising experience. In an attempt to secure a more supportive experience, women began to demand the presence of a supportive companion; namely their partner. This event became the catalyst for a number of studies focusing on different types of support providers and their contribution to the phenomenon of social support during labour. More recently, it has become a common practice for some women to be supported during labour by a number of people from their social network. However, research on the influence of such supportive people on women’s experience of labour and birth and on birth outcomes is scarce. The aim of this study is to examine the influence of various support arrangements from a woman’s family and social network on her experience of labour and birth and on birth outcomes. The mixed-method study was conducted to answer three research questions: 1. Do women with more than one support person present during labour and birth have similar perceptions and experiences of support compared to women with one support person? 2. Do women with more than one support person present during labour and birth have similar birth outcomes compared to women with one support person? 3. Do women with different types of support providers during labour and birth have similar birth outcomes? Methods Phase one of this study developed, pilot tested and administered a newly developed instrument designed to measure women’s perceptions of supportive behaviours provided during labour. Specific birth outcome data were extracted from the medical records. Phase two consisted of in-depth interviews with a sample of women who had completed the survey. Results: The results identified a statistically significant relationship between women’s perceptions of social support and the number of support providers: women supported by one person only rated the supportive behaviours of that person more highly compared to women who were supported by a number of people. The results also identified that women supported by one person used less analgesia. An additional qualitative finding was that some women sacrificed the support of female relatives at the request of their partners. Conclusion: By using a mixed-method approach, this study found that women were selective in their choice of support providers, as they chose individuals with whom they had an enduring affectionate attachment. Women place more emphasis on a support person’s ability to fulfil their attachment needs of close proximity and a sense of security and safety, rather than their ability to provide the expected functional supportive behaviours.