To explore how pre-existing conditions affect the diagnostic process for potential cancer in primary care patients.

Qualitative interview study using thematic analysis underpinned by a critical realist approach.

Primary care practices recruited through four Clinical Research Networks and UK health charities across England.

Interviews were conducted with 75 patients with one or more pre-existing conditions (anxiety/depression, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson’s disease or multiple long-term conditions (four or more)) and 28 primary care professionals (general practitioners and nurses).

The study identified legitimacy as a central theme influencing patient trajectories in the health system while trying to receive a diagnosis for symptoms with which they presented to primary care. Patients engaged in self-triage to determine whether symptoms were ‘legitimate’ enough to seek care. Subsequent triaging steps (by receptionists, nurses and online systems) acted as gatekeepers, with decisions influenced by effectiveness of describing the symptom and subjective impressions. During consultations, clinicians relied on a mix of symptom narrative clarity, medical history and objective ‘metrics’ (eg, blood results, family history) to determine legitimacy for further investigations. Pre-existing conditions could either lower the threshold for referrals or obscure potential cancer symptoms. The stigma associated with mental health diagnoses often undermined perceived legitimacy and contributed to delays.

Legitimacy is continuously negotiated throughout the diagnostic pathway. It is shaped by social, moral and biomedical judgements. To promote early cancer diagnosis for patients with pre-existing conditions, clinicians must make legitimacy assessments explicit, reduce stigma especially around mental health and standardise triage processes.

Multimorbidity contributes significantly to poor population health outcomes while straining healthcare systems. Although some multimorbid patients experience an accelerated health decline (a decline in well-being or functional status that cannot be attributed to the natural ageing-related health deterioration), others can remain stable for years. Identifying risk factors for accelerated health decline in persons with multimorbidity could help prevent complications and reduce unnecessary interventions. Our review, therefore, aims to map the evidence on the clinical, biographical and healthcare-related factors associated with an accelerated health decline in multimorbid individuals.

We will use the evidence-mapping review methodology. We will perform a systematic comprehensive literature search in Medline via Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using two broad concepts: ‘multimorbidity’ and ‘longitudinal studies’. We will search with MeSH terms (eg, ‘Multimorbidity’ (Majr), ‘Longitudinal Studies’ (Majr)) and free text words (eg, multimorbidity, multiple chronic condition*, longitudinal), from inception to date of the final search. All original quantitative studies involving participants in primary care and related healthcare settings will be included. Abstract/titles and full-text screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two or more researchers to minimise selection and reporting bias, with conflicts resolved by consensus. The data will be analysed qualitatively, and topics will be extracted to create evidence clusters. Risk factors will be classified in groups and cross-referenced against the outcomes from respective studies into combinations of exposure-outcome clusters. The resulting evidence clusters will be described narratively and presented as bubble plots. The search, initiated in January 2023, will be updated following this protocol review to reflect the most current evidence; exact dates will be reported in the results manuscript.

Due to the nature of the proposed evidence map, ethics approval will not be required. Results from our research will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at local, national and international conferences.

https://osf.io/q72xa/

Chronic inflammatory skin diseases, despite low mortality, significantly impair quality of life (QoL). Up to 80% of patients with dermatological conditions experience severe itch and poor sleep, as well as related mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression. The relationship between skin diseases and mental health highlights the challenges that doctors face in treating these conditions. Existing psychotherapeutics, such as mindfulness training, cognitive behavioural therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy, are widely used and effective in the treatment of mental health illnesses. However, there is limited evidence on the application of such interventions in dermatology, and most mental health apps lack robust clinical evaluation. We report the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and implementation of a mobile app containing dermatology-specified psychotherapeutic strategies in reducing QoL burden.

English-speaking patients aged 16 years and older with psoriasis, eczema or chronic urticaria will be recruited and randomised into the intervention arm (psychotherapeutic application) or active control group (Healthy365 app, a general wellness application managed by the Singapore Health Promotion Board). This allows a comparative assessment of app-usage-specific outcomes while preserving the blinding of all participants. The primary outcome is the change in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score from baseline to week 8. Secondary outcomes include physician-assessed disease severity at weeks 8 and 16 relative to baseline, differences in other patient-reported measures at weeks 8, 16 and 32, self-reported treatment adherence and initiation/escalation of systemic medications. To understand how patients engage with the app, we will evaluate the implementation process, focusing on key measures such as engagement, satisfaction and willingness to pay. Statistical analysis will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis, and missing data will be analysed using last observation carried forward.

All participants will receive both verbal and written study information that aligns with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Ethical approval has been obtained from the National Healthcare Group’s Domain Specific Review Board (reference number: 2022/00751). Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal. Data will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

NCT06702293.