4.4 Article

A prospective evaluation of the fourth national Be Clear on Cancer 'Blood in Pee' campaign in England

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13606

关键词

awareness; early diagnosis; haematuria; kidney neoplasms; public health; urinary bladder neoplasms

资金

  1. Public Health England
  2. National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula
  3. Cancer Research UK [C8640/Q37A23385]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fourth Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) 'Blood in Pee' (BiP) campaign appears to have been effective in increasing bladder cancer symptom awareness and GP attendances, although long-term impacts are unclear.
Objective To assess the impact of the fourth Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) 'Blood in Pee' (BiP) campaign (July to September 2018) on bladder and kidney cancer symptom awareness and outcomes in England. Methods In this uncontrolled before and after study, symptom awareness and reported barriers to GP attendance were assessed using panel and one-to-one interviews. The Health Improvement Network (THIN), National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and NHS Cancer Waiting Times (CWT) data were analysed to assess the impact on GP attendances, urgent cancer referrals, cancer diagnoses and 1-year survival. Analyses used Poisson, negative binomial and Cox regression. Results Symptom awareness and intention to consult a GP after one episode of haematuria increased following the campaign. GP attendance with haematuria (rate ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.28) and urgent cancer referrals (RR 1.18 95% CI: 1.08-1.28) increased following the campaign. Early-stage diagnoses increased for bladder cancer (difference in percentage 2.8%, 95% CI: -0.2%-5.8%), but not for kidney cancer (difference -0.6%, 95% CI: -3.2%-2.1%). Conclusions The fourth BCoC BiP campaign appears to have been effective in increasing bladder cancer symptom awareness and GP attendances, although long-term impacts are unclear.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据