Barriers to working with people affected by cancer: Preliminary qualitative data from a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Nutrition may affect occurrence, recurrence and survival rates and many cancer patients and survivors seek individualized nutrition advice. Appropriately skilled nutritional therapy (NT) practitioners may be well-placed to safely provide this advice, but little is known of their perspectives on working with people affected by cancer. This mixed-methods study seeks to explore their views on training, barriers to practice, use of evidence, and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice. Preliminary data on barriers to practice are reported here. Methods: Two cohorts of NT practitioners were recruited from all UK registered NT practitioners, by an on-line anonymous survey. 84 cancer practitioners (CP) and 165 non-cancer practitioners (NCP) were recruited. Mixed quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the survey. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on the use of evidence, barriers to practice and perceived needs for working with clients with cancer, for further exploration using interviews and focus groups. Preliminary results: For the NCP cohort, exploring themes of perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer suggested that perceived complexity, risk and need for caution in this area of practice were important barriers. Insufficient specialist knowledge and skills also emerged as barriers. Some NCPs perceived opposition from medical practitioners and other mainstream healthcare professions as an obstacle to starting cancer practice. To overcome these barriers, specialist training emerged as most important. For the CP cohort, in exploring the skills they considered enabled them to undertake cancer work, specialist clinical and technical knowledge emerged strongly. Only 10% CP participants did not want more work with people affected by cancer. 10% CPs reported some NHS referrals, whereas most received clients by self-referral or from other practitioners. When considering barriers that impede their cancer practice, the dominant categories for CPs were hostility or opposition by mainstream oncology professionals, and lack of dialogue and engagement with them. To overcome these barriers, CPs desired engagement with oncology professionals and recognized specialist cancer NT training. For both NCPs and CPs, evidence resources, practice guidelines and practitioner support networks also emerged as potential enablers to cancer practice. Conclusions: This is the first detailed exploration of NT practitioners’ perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer. Acquiring specialist skills and knowledge appears important to enable NCPs to start cancer work, and for CPs with these skills, the perceived barriers appear foremost in the relationship with mainstream cancer professionals. Further exploration of these themes, and other NT practitioner perspectives on working with people affected by cancer, is underway. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice, training and other resources.

Using a whole person approach to support people with cancer: a longitudinal, mixed methods service evaluation

Introduction: Improved models of care are needed to meet all the support needs of people with cancer, which encompass psychological, emotional, physical, spiritual, sexual, occupational, social and existential needs. The aim of this paper is to (1) evaluate short and long-term impacts of using a whole person approach to support people with cancer on the Living Well with the Impact of Cancer Course (LWC); (2) use these data to inform strategic decisions about future service provision at Penny Brohn UK. Methods: Longitudinal mixed-methods service evaluation (n=135). Data collected included health related quality of life (HRQoL) (FACIT-SpEx); Concerns (types and severity - MYCaW); lifestyle behaviour (bespoke questionnaire) and participants’ experiences over 12 months post course. Results: Statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline - 12 months in severity of MYCaW Concerns (n=64; p<0.000) and mean total HRQoL (n=66; p<0.000). The majority of MYCaW concerns were ‘psychological and emotional’ and about participants’ wellbeing. Spiritual, emotional and functional wellbeing contributed most to HRQoL improvements at 12 months. Barriers to maintaining healthy lifestyle changes included lack of support from family and friends, time constraints, and returning to work. 3-6 months post-course was identified as the time when more support was most likely to be needed. Conclusions: Using a whole person approach for the LWC enabled the needs of participants to be met, and statistically and clinically significant improvements in HRQoL and MYCaW Concerns were reported. Qualitative data analysis explored how experiencing whole person support enabled participants to make and sustain healthy lifestyle changes associated with improved survivorship. Barriers experienced to making health behaviour change were also identified. These data then informed wider and more person-centred clinical provision to increase the maintenance of positive long-term behaviour changes. Comparison of whole person approaches to cancer treatment and support and standard care are now urgently needed.