Objectives: To evaluate the effects of nurse led clinics in primary care on secondary prevention, total mortality, and coronary event rates after four years. Design: Follow up of a randomised controlled trial by postal questionnaires and review of case notes and national datasets. Setting: Stratified, random sample of 19 general practices in north east Scotland. Participants: 1343 patients (673 intervention and 670 control) under 80 years with a working diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. Intervention: Nurse led secondary prevention clinics promoted medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention and offered regular follow up for one year. Main outcome measures: Components of secondary prevention (aspirin, blood pressure management, lipid management, healthy diet, exercise, non-smoking), total mortality, and coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarctions and coronary deaths). Results: Mean follow up was at 4.7 years. Significant improvements were shown in the intervention group in all components of secondary prevention except smoking at one year, and these were sustained after four years except for exercise. The control group, most of whom attended clinics after the initial year, caught up before final follow up, and differences between groups were no longer significant. At 4.7 years, 100 patients in the intervention group and 128 in the control group had died: cumulative death rates were 14.5% and 18.9%, respectively (P=0.038). 100 coronary events occurred in the intervention group and 125 in the control group: cumulative event rates were 14.2% and 18.2%, respectively (P=0.052). Adjusting for age, sex, general practice, and baseline secondary prevention, proportional hazard ratios were 0.75 for all deaths (95% confidence intervals 0.58 to 0.98; P=0.036) and 0.76 for coronary events (0.58 to 1.00; P=0.049) Conclusions: Nurse led secondary prevention improved medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention and this seemed to lead to significantly fewer total deaths and probably fewer coronary events. Secondary prevention clinics should be started sooner rather than later. What is already known on this topic: Several effective interventions exist for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, but implementing them in practice has proved difficult Secondary prevention programmes for coronary heart disease have improved short term outcomes such as processes of care and quality of life What this study adds: Short term improvements in uptake of secondary prevention produced by nurse led clinics are maintained in the longer term Improved medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention produced by nurse led clinics seem to lead to fewer total deaths and coronary events

People with cancer receive regular structured follow up after initial treatment, usually by a specialist in a cancer centre. Increasing numbers of cancer survivors prompts interest in alternative structured follow-up models. There is worldwide evidence of increasing interest in delivering cancer follow-up using technology. This review sough evidence supporting the use of technology in cancer follow-up from good quality randomised controlled trials.

Existing research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon. Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies. 39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 - 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization. Rural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research. None.

The study investigated if rurality, area deprivation, access to outside space (Study 1), and frequency of visiting and duration in green space (Study 2) are associated with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined if individual demographics (age, gender, COVID-19 shielding status) and illness beliefs have a direct association with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. A serial, weekly, nationally representative, cross-sectional, observational study of randomly selected adults was conducted in Scotland during June and July 2020. If available, validated instruments were used to measure psychological distress, individual demographics, illness beliefs, and the following characteristics: Rurality, area deprivation, access to residential outside space, frequency of visiting, and duration in green space. Simple linear regressions followed by examination of moderation effect were conducted. There were 2969 participants in Study 1, of which 1765 (59.6%) were female, 349 (11.9%) were in the shielding category, and the median age was 54 years. There were 502 participants in Study 2, of which 295 (58.60%) were female, 58 (11.6%) were in shielding category, and the median age was 53 years. Direct effects showed that psychological distress was worse if participants reported the following: Urban, in a deprived area, no access to or sharing residential outside space, fewer visits to green space (environment), younger, female, in the shielding category (demographics), worse illness (COVID-19) representations, and greater threat perception (illness beliefs). Moderation analyses showed that environmental factors amplified the direct effects of the individual factors on psychological distress. This study offers pointers for public health and for environmental planning, design, and management, including housing design and public open space provision and regulation.

Rurality and distance from cancer treatment centres have been shown to negatively impact cancer outcomes, but the mechanisms remain obscure. We analysed the impact of travel time to key healthcare facilities and mainland/island residency on the cancer diagnostic pathway (treatment within 62 days of referral, and within 31 days of diagnosis) and 1-year mortality using a data-linkage study with 12 339 patients. After controlling for important confounders, mainland patients with more than 60 min of travelling time to their cancer treatment centre ((OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.25-1.61) and island dwellers (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.59) were more likely to commence cancer treatment within 62 days of general practitioner (GP) referral and within 31 days of their cancer diagnosis compared with those living within 15 min. Island-dweller patients were more likely to have their diagnosis and treatment started on the same or next day (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.31-2.25). Increased travelling time to a cancer treatment centre was associated with increased mortality to 1 year (30-59 min (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.05-1.41), >60 min (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03-1.36), island dweller (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97-1.41). Island dwelling and greater mainland travel burden was associated with more rapid cancer diagnosis and treatment following GP referral even after adjustment for advanced disease; however, these patients also experienced a survival disadvantage compared with those living nearer. Cancer services may need to be better configured to suit the different needs of dispersed populations.

Background: Antibiotic-induced gut dysbiosis has been associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) in older adults. This study will investigate whether an association exists between antibiotic usage and early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), and also evaluate this in later-onset CRC for comparison.Methods: A case-control study was conducted using primary care data from 1999–2011. Analysis were conducted separately in early-onset CRC cases (diagnosed < 50 years) and later-onset cases (diagnosed ≥ 50 years). Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between antibiotic exposure and CRC by tumour location, adjusting for comorbidities.Results: Seven thousands nine hundred and three CRC cases (445 aged <50 years) and 30,418 controls were identified. Antibiotic consumption was associated with colon cancer in both age-groups, particularly in the early-onset CRC cohort (<50 years: adjusted Odds Ratio (OR_adj) 1.49 (95% CI 1.07, 2.07),p = 0·018; ≥50 years (OR_adj(95% CI) 1.09 (1.01, 1.18),p = 0·029). Antibiotics were not associated with rectal cancer (<50 years: OR_adj(95% CI) 1.17 (0.75, 1.84),p = 0.493; ≥50 years: OR_adj(95% CI) 1.07 (0.96, 1.19),p = 0.238).Conclusion: Our findings suggest antibiotics may have a role in colon tumour formation across all age-groups.