Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input.

OBJECTIVES: A previously developed decision model to prioritize surgical procedures in times of scarce surgical capacity used quality of life (QoL) primarily derived from experts in one center. These estimates are key input of the model, and might be more context-dependent than the other input parameters (age, survival). The aim of this study was to validate our model by replicating these QoL estimates. METHODS: The original study estimated QoL of patients in need of commonly performed procedures in live expert-panel meetings. This study replicated this procedure using a web-based Delphi approach in a different hospital. The new QoL scores were compared with the original scores using mixed effects linear regression. The ranking of surgical procedures based on combined QoL values from the validation and original study was compared to the ranking based solely on the original QoL values. RESULTS: The overall mean difference in QoL estimates between the validation study and the original study was - 0.11 (95% CI: -0.12 - -0.10). The model output (DALY/month delay) based on QoL data from both studies was similar to the model output based on the original data only: The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the ranking of all procedures before and after including the new QoL estimates was 0.988. DISCUSSION: Even though the new QoL estimates were systematically lower than the values from the original study, the ranking for urgency based on health loss per unit of time delay of procedures was consistent. This underscores the robustness and generalizability of the decision model for prioritization of surgical procedures.

Symptom monitoring in cancer and fully automated advice on supportive care: Patients' perspectives on self-management strategies and the eHealth self-management application Oncokompas.

OBJECTIVE: The web-based application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer patients to self-manage their symptoms. This qualitative study was conducted to obtain insight in patients' self-management strategies to cope with cancer and their experiences with Oncokompas as a fully automated behavioural intervention technology. METHODS: Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with 22 participants (10 head and neck cancer survivors and 12 incurably ill patients). Interview questions were about self-management strategies and experiences with Oncokompas. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants applied several self-management strategies, among which trying to stay in control and make the best of their situation. They described Oncokompas' added value: being able to monitor symptoms and having access to a personal online library. Main reasons for not using Oncokompas were concentration problems, lack of time or having technical issues. Recommendations were made for further development of Oncokompas, relating to its content, technical and functional aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors and incurably ill patients use various self-management strategies to cope with cancer. The objectives of self-management interventions as Oncokompas correspond well with these strategies: taking a certain responsibility for your well-being and being in charge of your life as long as possible by obtaining automated information (24/7) on symptoms and tailored supportive care options.

Recommendations for head and neck surgical oncology practice in a setting of acute severe resource constraint during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international consensus.

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff.