ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of professionally led support groups for people with advanced or metastatic cancer, and identify factors critical to implementation success within real-world settings. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE; PsychINFO; CINAHL) and grey literature were searched for empirical publications and evaluations. Articles were screened for eligibility and data systematically extracted, charted and summarised using a modified scoping review methodology. Implementation factors were mapped using Proctor's implementation framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0. RESULTS: A total of 1691 publications were identified; 19 were eligible for inclusion (8 randomised controlled trials, 7 qualitative studies, 2 cohort studies, 2 mixed methods studies). Most (n=18) studies focused on tumour-specific support groups. Evidence supported professionally led support groups in reducing mood disturbances (n=5), distress (i.e. traumatic stress, depression) (n=4) and pain (n=2). Other benefits included social connectedness (n=6), addressing existential distress (n=5), information and knowledge (n=6), empowerment and sense of control (n=2), relationships with families (n=2) and communication with health professionals (n=2). Thirteen studies identified factors predicting successful adoption, implementation or sustainment, including acceptability (n=12; 63%), feasibility (n=6; 32%) and appropriateness (n=1; 5%). Key determinants of successful implementation included group leaders' skills/experience, mode of operation, travelling distance, group composition and membership and resourcing. CONCLUSIONS: Professionally led tumour-specific support groups demonstrate effectiveness in reducing mood disturbances, distress and pain among patients. Successful implementation hinges on factors such as leadership expertise, operational methods and resource allocation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Professionally led support groups may fill an important gap in supportive care for people with advanced or metastatic cancer.
ABSTRACT
Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.
