Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer Outcomes in people with Severe Mental Illness Cohort (COSMIC): a protocol for an Australian retrospective cohort using linked administrative data.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality is significantly higher in those with severe mental illness (SMI) compared with the general population, despite similar incidence rates, suggesting that barriers to optimal screening and cancer care may contribute to disparities in CRC mortality in those with SMI. This study aims to compare participation in Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) in those with SMI and those in the general population. We will also investigate treatment pathways after diagnosis to determine whether treatment variations could explain differences in CRC mortality.

Methods and analysis

We will undertake a retrospective cohort study of Australians using linked administrative data to assess differences in screening and cancer care between those with and without SMI, aged 50-74 years on or after 1 January 2006. People with SMI will be defined using antipsychotic medication prescription data. The comparison group will be people enrolled in Medicare (Australia's universal healthcare system) who have not been prescribed antipsychotic medication. Data on outcomes (NBCSP participation, follow-up colonoscopy, CRC incidence and CRC-cause and all-cause mortality) and confounders will be obtained from national-based and state-based administrative health datasets. All people in New South Wales, aged 50-74 with a new diagnosis of CRC on or after 1 January 2006, will be ascertained to examine stage at diagnosis and cancer treatment in those with and without SMI. Poisson regression will be used to calculate incidence rates and rate ratios for each outcome.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee and data custodians from every Australian State/Territory. Findings will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented at appropriate conferences.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12620000781943.

SUBMITTER: Protani MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8190058 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Interventions: We are assessing the impact of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) by comparing participation rates of people with and without Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and looking at health outcomes. We will be using data collected from Aug 2006 - latest available. We are linking data using Commonwealth data (NBCSP, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Cancer Database & the National Death Index) to compare bowel cancer screening participation in people with SMI to those from the general population. We will additionally link these to the NSW cancer registry and hospital data to examine care pathways from diagnosis through treatment and end-of-life care. We will also conduct a consultation with people with experience of SMI and Colorectal cancer and people with SMI in peer support roles who can provide their perspective on the barriers faced by people with SMI to gaining timely screening, diagnosis and optimal care. These participants will be recruited from New South Wales consumer organisations and organisations with a strong focus on provision of peer support and advocacy. We will use a semi structured group interview schedule to facilitate discussion of a single focus group of 15 people. The group will consist of both people with lived experience who have direct experience of bowel cancer (n=10), as well as other people with lived experience who have supported people in this situation – as peer support workers or in other consumer advocacy/support roles (n=5). We will use this qualitative arm of the study to further develop our understanding of the quantitative findings. The consultation will also develop ideas on how to improve access to care. Primary outcome(s): Participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program assessed using data from the NBCSP.[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006) (the date of commencement of the NBCSP) or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later.. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and were recorded in the administrative data. This will be assessed when we receive the data.];Colonoscopy rates assessed using data from the NBCSP [Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until colonoscopy. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.];Cancer diagnosis using data from the Australian Cancer Database[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until cancer diagnosis. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.] Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Longitudinal;Selection: Case control;Timing: Both

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, partly due to adverse metabolic effects of antipsychotic medications. In public health care settings, annual screening rates are 30%. We measured adherence to national diabetes screening guidelines for patients taking antipsychotic medications. OBJECTIVE:To estimate diabetes screening prevalence among patients with SMI within an integrated health care system, and to assess characteristics associated with lack of screening. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:Antipsychotic-treated adults with SMI. We excluded participants with known diabetes. MAIN MEASURES:Primary outcome was screening via fasting glucose test or hemoglobin A1c during a 1-year period. KEY RESULTS:In 2014, 16,754 patients with SMI diagnoses were receiving antipsychotics. Seventy-four percent of these patients' providers ordered diabetes screening tests that year, but only 55% (9247/16,754) received screening. When the observation time frame was extended to 2 years, 73% (12,250/16,754) were screened. Adjusting for sex and race/ethnicity, young adults (aged 18-29 years) were less likely to receive screening than older age groups [adjusted RR (aRR) 1.23-1.57, p < 0.0001]. Compared to whites, screening was more common for Asians (aRR 1.141, 95% CI 1.089-1.195, p < 0.0001), less common for blacks (aRR 0.946, 95% CI 0.898-0.997, p < 0.0375), and no different for Hispanics (aRR 1.030, 95% CI 0.988-1.074, p = 0.165). Smokers were less likely to be screened than non-smokers (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p < 0.0008). Utilization of either mental health or primary care services increased the likelihood of screening. CONCLUSIONS:While almost three-fourths of adults with SMI taking antipsychotic medications received a lab order for diabetes screening, only 55% received screening within a 12-month period. Young adults and smokers were less likely to be screened, despite their disproportionate metabolic risk. Future studies should assess the barriers and facilitators with regard to diabetes screening in this vulnerable population at the patient, provider, and system levels.