These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Background There is limited evidence about the impact of specific patterns of multi-morbidity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from large samples of adult subjects. Methods We used data from the English General Practice Patient Survey 2011–2012. We defined multi-morbidity as the presence of two or more of 12 self-reported conditions or another (unspecified) long-term health problem. We investigated differences in HRQoL (EQ-5D scores) associated with combinations of these conditions after adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and the presence of a recent illness or injury. Analyses were based on 831,537 responses from patients aged 18 years or older in 8,254 primary care practices in England. Results Of respondents, 23 % reported two or more chronic conditions (ranging from 7 % of those under 45 years of age to 51 % of those 65 years or older). Multi-morbidity was more common among women, White individuals and respondents from socio-economically deprived areas. Neurological problems, mental health problems, arthritis and long-term back problem were associated with the greatest HRQoL deficits. The presence of three or more conditions was commonly associated with greater reduction in quality of life than that implied by the sum of the differences associated with the individual conditions. The decline in quality of life associated with an additional condition in people with two and three physical conditions was less for older people than for younger people. Multi-morbidity was associated with a substantially worse HRQoL in diabetes than in other long-term conditions. With the exception of neurological conditions, the presence of a comorbid mental health problem had a more adverse effect on HRQoL than any single comorbid physical condition. Conclusion Patients with multi-morbid diabetes, arthritis, neurological, or long-term mental health problems have significantly lower quality of life than other people. People with long-term health conditions require integrated mental and physical healthcare services.

BACKGROUND The health and healthcare of sexual minorities have recently been identified as priorities for health research and policy. OBJECTIVE To compare the health and healthcare experiences of sexual minorities with heterosexual people of the same gender, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. DESIGN Multivariate analyses of observational data from the 2009/2010 English General Practice Patient Survey. PARTICIPANTS The survey was mailed to 5.56 million randomly sampled adults registered with a National Health Service general practice (representing 99 % of England’s adult population). In all, 2,169,718 people responded (39 % response rate), including 27,497 people who described themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. MAIN MEASURES Two measures of health status (fair/poor overall self-rated health and self-reported presence of a longstanding psychological condition) and four measures of poor patient experiences (no trust or confidence in the doctor, poor/very poor doctor communication, poor/very poor nurse communication, fairly/very dissatisfied with care overall). KEY RESULTS Sexual minorities were two to three times more likely to report having a longstanding psychological or emotional problem than heterosexual counterparts (age-adjusted for 5.2 % heterosexual, 10.9 % gay, 15.0 % bisexual for men; 6.0 % heterosexual, 12.3 % lesbian and 18.8 % bisexual for women; p < 0.001 for each). Sexual minorities were also more likely to report fair/poor health (adjusted 19.6 % heterosexual, 21.8 % gay, 26.4 % bisexual for men; 20.5 % heterosexual, 24.9 % lesbian and 31.6 % bisexual for women; p < 0.001 for each). Adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, sexual minorities were about one and one-half times more likely than heterosexual people to report unfavorable experiences with each of four aspects of primary care. Little of the overall disparity reflected concentration of sexual minorities in low-performing practices. CONCLUSIONS Sexual minorities suffer both poorer health and worse healthcare experiences. Efforts should be made to recognize the needs and improve the experiences of sexual minorities. Examining patient experience disparities by sexual orientation can inform such efforts.