Information interventions for orienting patients and their carers to cancer care facilities (Protocol)

To assess the effects of information interventions which orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility and the services available in the facility.

Facilitating needs based cancer care for people with a chronic disease : evaluation of an intervention using a multi-centre interrupted time series design

Background: Palliative care should be provided according to the individual needs of the patient, caregiver and family, so that the type and level of care provided, as well as the setting in which it is delivered, are dependent on the complexity and severity of individual needs, rather than prognosis or diagnosis. This paper presents a study designed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of an intervention to assist in the allocation of palliative care resources according to need, within the context of a population of people with advanced cancer. ---------- Methods/design: People with advanced cancer and their caregivers completed bi-monthly telephone interviews over a period of up to 18 months to assess unmet needs, anxiety and depression, quality of life, satisfaction with care and service utilisation. The intervention, introduced after at least two baseline phone interviews, involved a) training medical, nursing and allied health professionals at each recruitment site on the use of the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Guidelines and the Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease - Cancer (NAT: PD-C); b) health professionals completing the NAT: PD-C with participating patients approximately monthly for the rest of the study period. Changes in outcomes will be compared pre-and post-intervention.---------- Discussion: The study will determine whether the routine, systematic and regular use of the Guidelines and NAT: PD-C in a range of clinical settings is a feasible and effective strategy for facilitating the timely provision of needs based care.

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.

Information interventions for orienting patients and their carers to cancer care facilities

Background: Cancer patients experience distress and anxiety related to their diagnosis, treatment and the unfamiliar cancer centre. Strategies with the aim of orienting patients to a cancer care facility may improve patient outcomes. Although meeting patients' information needs at different stages is important, there is little agreement about the type of information and the timing for information to be given. Orientation interventions aim to address information needs at the start of a person's experience with a cancer care facility. The extent of any benefit of these interventions is unknown. Objectives: To assess the effects of information interventions which orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility, and to the services available in the facility. Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to Jun 2011), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1966 to Jun 2011), CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to Jun 2011), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1966 to Jun 2011), review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted principal investigators and experts in the field. Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of information interventions that orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility. Data collection and analysis: Results of searches were reviewed against the pre-determined criteria for inclusion by two review authors. The primary outcomes were knowledge and understanding; health status and wellbeing, evaluation of care, and harms. Secondary outcomes were communication, skills acquisition, behavioural outcomes, service delivery, and health professional outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results: We included four RCTs involving 610 participants. All four trials aimed to investigate the effects of orientation programs for cancer patients to a cancer facility. There was high risk of bias across studies. Findings from two of the RCTs demonstrated significant benefits of the orientation intervention in relation to levels of distress (mean difference (MD) -8.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.79 to -6.13), but non-significant benefits in relation to state anxiety levels (MD -9.77 (95% CI -24.96 to 5.41). Other outcomes for participants were generally positive (e.g. more knowledgeable about the cancer centre and cancer therapy, better coping abilities). No harms or adverse effects were measured or reported by any of the included studies. There were insufficient data on the other outcomes of interest. Authors conclusion: This review has demonstrated the feasibility and some potential benefits of orientation interventions. There was a low level of evidence suggesting that orientation interventions can reduce distress in patients. However, most of the other outcomes remain inconclusive (patient knowledge recall/ satisfaction). The majority of studies were subject to high risk of bias, and were likely to be insufficiently powered. Further well conducted and powered RCTs are required to provide evidence for determining the most appropriate intensity, nature, mode and resources for such interventions. Patient and carer-focused outcomes should be included.

Can we deliver both population-based and personalized approaches to cancer care?

Responding to the individual needs of the person affected by cancer is a fundamental tenet of nursing care. The evidence base to enable highly personalized approaches to the way we provide care has grown enormously in recent years. Today, we have a much better understanding of the mechanisms underpinning health needs of people with cancer, as well as the wide range of environmental, sociocultural, psychological, and biological influences on these needs. This growing evidence base enables us to better target and tailor interventions in increasingly sophisticated ways.

Cancer-related psychosocial research : what are the perspectives of cancer care centre users on participation?

Purpose To explore the perspectives of cancer care centre users on participation in psychosocial research to inform research design and ethics. Methods The study is based on a qualitative research design. Fourteen semistructured interviews were carried in people diagnosed with cancer and carers. The interview included four main questions about practical barriers to participation, types of research design, motivating factors and the conduct of research in a cancer care support setting. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Interviewees demonstrated a willingness to participate in psychosocial research within certain circumstances. There were no practical barriers identified, although they considered payment for research-related travel important. The most acceptable research design was the face-to-face interview and the least preferred was the randomised control trial. The factors that motivated participation were altruism, valuing research, and making a contribution to the centre. Interviewees supported the conduct of research in cancer care support centres conditional upon delaying recruitment during the initial months of users’ visits and its need to be discreet to avoid deterring visitors from accessing the centre. Conclusions The study concludes that the personal interaction between participants and researchers is the most important feature of decision-making by patients/carers to join studies. Taking into account the perspectives of people affected by cancer during the early stages of research design may enhance recruitment and retention and can contribute to the development of research protocols and ethics.

Racial differences in physical activity among breast cancer survivors : implications for breast cancer care

Background: Physical activity after breast cancer diagnosis is associated with improved survival. This study examines levels of and changes in physical activity following breast cancer diagnosis, overall and by race. Methods: The Carolina Breast Cancer Study, Phase III, assessed pre- and post-diagnosis physical activity levels in a cohort of 1,735 women, aged 20-74, diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in 44 counties of North Carolina. Logistic regression and analysis of variance were used to examine whether demographic, behavioral and clinical characteristics were associated with activity levels. Results: Only 35% of breast cancer survivors met current physical activity guidelines post-diagnosis. A decrease in activity following diagnosis was reported by 59% of patients, with the average study participant reducing their activity by 230 minutes (95% CI: 190, 270). Following adjustment for potential confounders, when compared to white women, African-American women were less likely to meet national physical activity guidelines post-diagnosis (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.88), reported less weekly post-diagnosis physical activity (182 vs. 215 minutes; p=0.13), and reported higher average reductions in pre- versus post-diagnosis weekly activity (262 vs. 230 minutes; p-value = 0.13). Conclusion: Despite compelling evidence demonstrating the benefits of physical activity post-breast cancer, it is clear that more work needs to be done to promote physical activity in breast cancer patients, especially among African-American women.

The accuracy and completeness for receipt of colorectal cancer care using Veterans Health Administration administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have established guidelines for the treatment and surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. Considering these guidelines, an accurate and efficient method is needed to measure receipt of care. METHODS: The accuracy and completeness of Veterans Health Administration (VA) administrative data were assessed by comparing them with data manually abstracted during the Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) quality improvement initiative for 618 patients with stage I-III CRC. RESULTS: The VA administrative data contained gender, marital, and birth information for all patients but race information was missing for 62.1% of patients. The percent agreement for demographic variables ranged from 98.1-100%. The kappa statistic for receipt of treatments ranged from 0.21 to 0.60 and there was a 96.9% agreement for the date of surgical resection. The percentage of post-diagnosis surveillance events in C4 also in VA administrative data were 76.0% for colonoscopy, 84.6% for physician visit, and 26.3% for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test. CONCLUSIONS: VA administrative data are accurate and complete for non-race demographic variables, receipt of CRC treatment, colonoscopy, and physician visits; but alternative data sources may be necessary to capture patient race and receipt of CEA tests.