ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9968-5991
Current Organisation
University of Aberdeen
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 21-06-2017
Abstract: Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer because over two-thirds of patients are diagnosed when curative treatment is no longer possible, partly due to later presentation with symptoms to a healthcare provider. To explore the theoretical underpinning of the Scottish CHEST intervention in participants randomized to the intervention group within the CHEST Australia trial. A purposive maximum variation s le of participants who received the intervention in the CHEST trial in Perth, Western Australia (N = 13) and Melbourne, Victoria, (N = 7) were interviewed. Patients were asked about their experience of the CHEST consultation, their recall of the main messages, their symptom appraisal and issues relating to help seeking when they develop symptoms. Thematic analysis was conducted to draw common themes between the participants. We identified themes consistent with the theoretical basis of the CHEST intervention. Barriers to consultation identified in the CHEST Australia trial participants were smoker stigmatization, guilt, fatalism and symptom normalization. We identified a general perceived mistrust of GPs based on previous negative experiences of visiting their GP in relation to their smoking. The intervention tackled barriers around lecturing and feelings of guilt and stigma related to smoking. We identified expected effects on salience and personal relevance of symptoms. Participants reported a clearer understanding of what to look out for and when to take action after the CHEST intervention. These findings suggest that the CHEST Australia intervention is achieving the desired objectives at the qualitative level through the proposed theoretical mechanisms.
Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
Date: 2022
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 04-05-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S13063-021-05231-7
Abstract: Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma. Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients ( n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised ( n = 150) or non-polarised ( n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician’s usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician’s usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised). The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-08-2015
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 18-05-2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/AJCO.13652
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 04-08-2022
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 29-08-2011
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Peter Murchie.