Limits...
Feasibility of a GP delivered skin cancer prevention intervention in Australia.

Vuong K, Trevena L, Bonevski B, Armstrong BK - BMC Fam Pract (2014)

Bottom Line: The intervention was found to be feasible within existing primary care team arrangements.Participants and practitioners found the intervention acceptable.At 1 month, sun-related knowledge had increased in both patient groups, with a greater increase in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference 0.48, p = 0.034).

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. kylie.vuong@sydney.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Despite years of public education, sun-related behaviours are difficult to change and a recent survey showed low levels of sun protection. In this study we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an opportunistic skin cancer prevention intervention in general practice.

Methods: We used a controlled pre-and-post intervention design. Participants (n = 100) were recruited sequentially from patients attending two general practices in Sydney, Australia, from November to December 2010. Participants in the intervention practice (n = 50) received general practitioner delivered sun protection advice after completing a skin cancer risk assessment tool, and a sun protection pamphlet, in addition to routine care, at a single attendance. The skin cancer risk assessment tool provided three levels of risk. The general practitioner (GP) reinforced the level of risk and discussed sun protection. Participants in the control practice (n = 50) received routine care. We measured feasibility by patients' and GPs' participation in the intervention and time taken, and acceptability by intervention participants and GPs ratings of the intervention. We measured reported sun-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour between the two groups at 1 and 13 months.

Results: The intervention was found to be feasible within existing primary care team arrangements. Participation at baseline was 81% (108/134), and repeated participation was 88% (88/100) at 1 month and 70% (70/100) at 13 months. Participants and practitioners found the intervention acceptable. At 1 month, sun-related knowledge had increased in both patient groups, with a greater increase in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference 0.48, p = 0.034). There were no differences between groups in sun-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour at 13 months.

Conclusions: A brief opportunistic skin cancer prevention intervention in general practice is feasible and acceptable. Further research in this setting with a more intensive intervention would be justified.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow diagram showing the recruitment of participants from two Sydney general practices in 2010-12.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4128422&req=5

Figure 1: Flow diagram showing the recruitment of participants from two Sydney general practices in 2010-12.

Mentions: FigureĀ 1 shows the recruitment of participants. Among the patients who were screened and invited to participate, three were ineligible because they did not have the capacity to offer meaningful consent and one because she did not have an appointment to see the GP. Twenty two patients refused, reasons offered included being busy (12 patients) and high compliance with sun protection (2 patients). Among the 58 intervention group patients who consented to participate, 8 were called in by their GPs before they completed the baseline sun habit survey and skin cancer risk assessment tool, and therefore not enrolled.


Feasibility of a GP delivered skin cancer prevention intervention in Australia.

Vuong K, Trevena L, Bonevski B, Armstrong BK - BMC Fam Pract (2014)

Flow diagram showing the recruitment of participants from two Sydney general practices in 2010-12.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4128422&req=5

Figure 1: Flow diagram showing the recruitment of participants from two Sydney general practices in 2010-12.
Mentions: FigureĀ 1 shows the recruitment of participants. Among the patients who were screened and invited to participate, three were ineligible because they did not have the capacity to offer meaningful consent and one because she did not have an appointment to see the GP. Twenty two patients refused, reasons offered included being busy (12 patients) and high compliance with sun protection (2 patients). Among the 58 intervention group patients who consented to participate, 8 were called in by their GPs before they completed the baseline sun habit survey and skin cancer risk assessment tool, and therefore not enrolled.

Bottom Line: The intervention was found to be feasible within existing primary care team arrangements.Participants and practitioners found the intervention acceptable.At 1 month, sun-related knowledge had increased in both patient groups, with a greater increase in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference 0.48, p = 0.034).

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. kylie.vuong@sydney.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Despite years of public education, sun-related behaviours are difficult to change and a recent survey showed low levels of sun protection. In this study we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an opportunistic skin cancer prevention intervention in general practice.

Methods: We used a controlled pre-and-post intervention design. Participants (n = 100) were recruited sequentially from patients attending two general practices in Sydney, Australia, from November to December 2010. Participants in the intervention practice (n = 50) received general practitioner delivered sun protection advice after completing a skin cancer risk assessment tool, and a sun protection pamphlet, in addition to routine care, at a single attendance. The skin cancer risk assessment tool provided three levels of risk. The general practitioner (GP) reinforced the level of risk and discussed sun protection. Participants in the control practice (n = 50) received routine care. We measured feasibility by patients' and GPs' participation in the intervention and time taken, and acceptability by intervention participants and GPs ratings of the intervention. We measured reported sun-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour between the two groups at 1 and 13 months.

Results: The intervention was found to be feasible within existing primary care team arrangements. Participation at baseline was 81% (108/134), and repeated participation was 88% (88/100) at 1 month and 70% (70/100) at 13 months. Participants and practitioners found the intervention acceptable. At 1 month, sun-related knowledge had increased in both patient groups, with a greater increase in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference 0.48, p = 0.034). There were no differences between groups in sun-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour at 13 months.

Conclusions: A brief opportunistic skin cancer prevention intervention in general practice is feasible and acceptable. Further research in this setting with a more intensive intervention would be justified.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus