Development, implementation and evaluation of a cancer survivor self-management care plan

Aim There is a growing population of people with cancer who experience physiological and psychological effects that persist long after treatment is complete. Interventions that enhance survivors’ self-management abilities might help offset these effects. The aim of this pilot study was to develop, implement and evaluate interventions tailored to assist patients to manage post-treatment health issues effectively. Method In this pre-post intervention cohort study, participants were recruited on completion of cancer treatment. Participants recruited preimplementation, who received usual care, comprised the control group. Participants recruited later formed the intervention group. In the intervention group, the Cancer Care Coordinator developed an individualised, structured Cancer Survivor Self-management Care Plan. Participants were interviewed on completion of treatment (baseline) and at three months. Assessments concerned health needs (CaSUN), self-efficacy in adjusting and coping with cancer and health-related quality of life (FACIT-B or FACT-C). The impact of the intervention was determined by independent t-tests of change scores. Results The intervention (n = 32) and control groups (n = 35) were comparable on demographic and clinical characteristics. Sample mean age was 54 + 10 years. Cancer diagnoses were breast (82%) and colorectal (18%). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) indicated improvement in the intervention group for: (a) functional well-being, from the FACIT, (Control: M = −0.69, SE = 0.91; Intervention: M = 3.04, SE = 1.13); and (b) self-efficacy in maintaining social relationships, (Control: M = −0.333, SE = 0.33; Intervention: M = 0.621, SE = 0.27). No significant differences were found in health needs, other subscales of quality of life, the extent and number of strategies used in coping and adjusting to cancer and in other domains of self-efficacy. Conclusions While the results should be interpreted with caution, due to the non-randomised nature of the study and the small sample size, they indicate the potential benefits of tailored self-management interventions warrant further investigation in this context.

Public policy, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation

Public policymakers are caught in a dilemma : there is a growing list of urgent issues to address, at the same time that public expenditure is being cut. Adding to this dilemma is a system of government designed in the 19th century and competing theories of policymaking dating back to the 1950s. The interlinked problems of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation are cases in point. As the climate changes, there will be more frequent, intense and/or prolonged disasters such as floods and bushfires. Clearly a well integrated whole of government response is needed, but how might this be achieved? Further, how could academic research contribute to resolving this dilemma in a way that would produce something of theoretical interest as well as practical outcomes for policymakers? These are the questions addressed by our research via a comparative analysis of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2011 Perth Hills bushfires, and the 2011 Brisbane floods. Our findings suggest that there is a need to: improve community engagement and communication; refocus attention on resilience; improve interagency communication and collaboration; and, develop institutional arrangements that support continual improvement and policy learning. These findings have implications for all areas of public policy theory and practice.