A scoping review of trials of interventions led or delivered by cancer nurses.

BACKGROUND: Advances in research and technology coupled with an increased cancer incidence and prevalence have resulted in significant expansion of cancer nurse role, in order to meet the growing demands and expectations of people affected by cancer (PABC). Cancer nurses are also tasked with delivering an increasing number of complex interventions as a result of ongoing clinical trials in cancer research. However much of this innovation is undocumented, and we have little insight about the nature of novel interventions currently being designed or delivered by cancer nurses. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesise the available evidence from clinical trials on interventions delivered or facilitated by cancer nurses. DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs and controlled before and after studies (CBA) of cancer nursing interventions aimed at improving the experience and outcomes of PABC. Ten electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, CDSR, DARE, HTA, WHO ICTRP) were searched between 01 January 2000 and 31 May 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies of selected studies and relevant Cochrane reviews were also hand-searched. Interventions delivered by cancer nurses were classified according to the OMAHA System. Heat maps were used to highlight the volume of evidence available for different cancer groups, intervention types and stage of cancer care continuum. RESULTS: The search identified 22,450 records; we screened 16,169 abstracts and considered 925 full papers, of which 214 studies (247,550 participants) were included in the evidence synthesis. The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (n = 79) and USA (n = 74). Interventions were delivered across the cancer continuum from prevention and risk reduction to survivorship, with the majority of interventions delivered during the treatment phase (n = 137). Most studies (131/214) had a teaching, guidance or counselling component. Cancer nurse interventions were targeted at primarily breast, prostate or multiple cancers. No studies were conducted in brain, sarcoma or other rare cancer types. The majority of the studies (n = 153) were nurse-led and delivered by specialist cancer nurses (n = 74) or advanced cancer nurses (n = 29), although the quality of reporting was poor. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to synthesise evidence from intervention studies across the entire cancer spectrum. As such, this work provides new insights into the nature of the contribution that cancer nurses have made to evidence-based innovations, as well as highlighting areas in which cancer nursing trials can be developed in the future.

A Web-Based Intervention to Reduce Distress After Prostate Cancer Treatment: Development and Feasibility of the Getting Down to Coping Program in Two Different Clinical Settings.

BACKGROUND: Distress after prostate cancer treatment is a substantial burden for up to one-third of men diagnosed. Physical and emotional symptoms and health service use can intensify, yet men are reticent to accept support. To provide accessible support that can be cost effectively integrated into care pathways, we developed a unique, Web-based, self-guided, cognitive-behavior program incorporating filmed and interactive peer support. OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility of the intervention among men experiencing distress after prostate cancer treatment. Demand, acceptability, change in distress and self-efficacy, and challenges for implementation in clinical practice were measured. METHODS: A pre-post, within-participant comparison, mixed-methods research design was followed. Phase I and II were conducted in primary care psychological service and secondary care cancer service, respectively. Men received clinician-generated postal invitations: phase I, 432 men diagnosed <5 years; phase II, 606 men diagnosed <3.5 years. Consent was Web-based. Men with mild and moderate distress were enrolled. Web-based assessment included demographic, disease, treatment characteristics; distress (General Health Questionnaire-28); depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9); anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder Scale-7); self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Symptom Control Inventory); satisfaction (author-generated, Likert-type questionnaire). Uptake and adherence were assessed with reference to the persuasive systems design model. Telephone interviews explored participant experience (phase II, n=10); interviews with health care professionals (n=3) explored implementation issues. RESULTS: A total of 135 men consented (phase I, 61/432, 14.1%; phase II, 74/606, 12.2%); from 96 eligible men screened for distress, 32% (30/96) entered the intervention (phase I, n=10; phase II, n=20). Twenty-four completed the Web-based program and assessments (phase I, n=8; phase II, n=16). Adherence for phase I and II was module completion rate 63% (mean 2.5, SD 1.9) versus 92% (mean 3.7, SD 1.0); rate of completing cognitive behavior therapy exercises 77% (mean 16.1, SD 6.2) versus 88% (mean 18.6, SD 3.9). Chat room activity occurred among 63% (5/8) and 75% (12/16) of men, respectively. In phase I, 75% (6/8) of men viewed all the films; in phase II, the total number of unique views weekly was 16, 11, 11, and 10, respectively. The phase II mood diary was completed by 100% (16/16) of men. Satisfaction was high for the program and films. Limited efficacy testing indicated improvement in distress baseline to post intervention: phase I, P=.03, r=-.55; phase II, P=.001, r=-.59. Self-efficacy improved for coping P=.02, r=-.41. Service assessment confirmed ease of assimilation into clinical practice and clarified health care practitioner roles. CONCLUSIONS: The Web-based program is acceptable and innovative in clinical practice. It was endorsed by patients and has potential to positively impact the experience of men with distress after prostate cancer treatment. It can potentially be delivered in a stepped model of psychological support in primary or secondary care. Feasibility evidence is compelling, supporting further evaluative research to determine clinical and cost effectiveness.

Using patient-reported outcome measures to deliver enhanced supportive care to people with lung cancer: feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led consultation model.

PURPOSE: Developing new supportive/palliative care services for lung cancer should encompass effective ways to promptly identify and address patients' healthcare needs. We examined whether an in-clinic, nurse-led consultation model, which was driven by use of a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure, was feasible and acceptable in the identification of unmet needs in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A two-part, repeated-measures, mixed-methods study was conducted. Part 1 employed literature reviews and stakeholder focus group interviews to inform selection of a population-appropriate needs assessment PRO measure. In Part 2, lung cancer nurse specialists (CNS) conducted three consecutive monthly consultations with patients. Recruitment/retention data, PRO data, and exit interview data were analysed. RESULTS: The Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care was the PRO measure selected based on Part 1 data. Twenty patients (response rate: 26%) participated in Part 2; 13 (65%) participated in all three consultations/assessments. The PRO measure helped patients to structure their thinking and prompted them to discuss previously underreported and/or sensitive issues, including such topics as family concerns, or death and dying. Lung CNS highlighted how PRO-measures-driven consultations differed from previous ones, in that their scope was broadened to allow nurses to offer personalised care. Small-to-moderate reductions in all domains of need were noted over time. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led PRO-measures-driven consultations are acceptable and conditionally feasible to holistically identify and effectively manage patient needs in modern lung cancer care. PRO data should be systematically collected and audited to assist in the provision of supportive care to people with lung cancer.

Compliance with the 62-day target does not improve long-term survival.

AIMS: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines require patients with colorectal cancer to wait no longer than 62 days from first referral to initiation of definitive treatment. We previously demonstrated that failure to meet with these guidelines did not appear to lead to poor outcomes in the short term. This study investigates whether this holds true over a longer period. METHODS: The survival status of 1,012 patients treated for colorectal cancer between January 1999 and June 2005 was reviewed. As in the previous audit, patients were placed into four groups, standard met (elective), standard met (emergency), standard failed (elective) and standard failed (emergency). Parameters analysed were pathological staging, 30-day mortality, long-term survival and cause of death. Data was analysed using log rank and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Operative mortality was higher in patients meeting the standard (7% elective, 20% emergency) compared to those who did not meet the standard (4% elective, 7% emergency). The proportion of early stage disease (Dukes' A and B) was highest in elective patients who failed the standard (50%) and lowest in emergencies meeting the standard (30%). Long-term survival was greatest in elective patients who failed the standard with 52% alive in October 2011 compared to 34% of elective cases meeting the standard. The most common cause of recorded death was colorectal cancer in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were not treated within the time frame set by the SIGN guidelines survived for longer following surgery. Reasons for this are likely to be multifactorial and include pathological cancer stage.

Employing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support newly diagnosed patients with melanoma: Feasibility and acceptability of a holistic needs assessment intervention.

PURPOSE: Living with a melanoma diagnosis can be challenging. We aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived value of a nurse-led intervention that utilised patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to identify and address the supportive care needs of newly diagnosed patients with Stage I/II melanoma over the first 4 months post-diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, repeated-measures, single-arm, feasibility trial. One baseline (4 weeks post-diagnosis; T1) and one follow-up intervention session (4 weeks after wide local excision; T3) took place, two months apart. Patient survey data were collected monthly, at four assessment points (T1-T4), followed by exit interviews. RESULTS: A recruitment rate of 55% (10/18) was achieved. The skin cancer nurse specialist (CNS) performed 19 in-clinic patient assessments within 6 months. One patient missed their follow-up intervention session (90% retention rate). Three participants (30%) were lost to follow-up at T4. Patients endorsed the standardised use of easy-to-use PRO measures as a means to help them shortlist, report and prioritise their needs. The CNS viewed the intervention as a highly structured activity that allowed tailoring support priority needs. A sizeable reduction in information needs was found from T1 to T4 (Standardised Response Mean [SRM] change = -0.99; p < 0.05). From T1 to T2, significant reductions in psychological (SRM change = -1.18; p < 0.001), practical (SRM change = -0.67; p < 0.05) and sexuality needs (SRM change = -0.78; p < 0.05) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention appears to be feasible in clinical practice and acceptable to both patients with newly diagnosed melanoma and clinicians. Future research is warranted to test its effectiveness against standard care.

Feasibility and acceptability of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the delivery of nurse-led supportive care to people with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Logistical issues pertinent to the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by colorectal cancer nurse specialists (CNS) to identify the needs of people with colorectal cancer (CRC) in acute care remain unknown. We explored the feasibility and acceptability of PROMs-driven, CNS-led consultations to enhance delivery of supportive care to people with CRC completing adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and focus groups with patients and CNS (Phase 1) were followed by a repeated-measures, exploratory study (Phase 2), whereby pre-consultation PROM data were collected during three consecutive, monthly consultations, and used by the CNS to enable delivery of personalised supportive care. RESULTS: Based on Phase 1 data, the Supportive Care Needs Survey was selected for use in Phase 2. Fourteen patients were recruited (recruitment rate: 56%); thirteen (93%) completed all study assessments. Forty in-clinic patient-clinician consultations took place. At baseline, 219 unmet needs were reported in total, with a notable 21% (T2) and 32% (T3) over-time reduction. Physical/daily living and psychological domain scores declined from T1 to T3, yet not statistically significantly. In exit interviews, patients described how using the PROM helped them shortlist and prioritise their needs. CNS stressed how the PROM helped them tease out more issues with patients than they would normally. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led, PROMs-driven needs assessments with patients with CRC appear to be feasible and acceptable in clinical practice, possibly associated with a sizeable reduction in the frequency of unmet needs, and smaller decreases in physical/daily living and psychosocial needs in the immediate post-chemotherapy period.

A systematic review of the supportive care needs of people living with and beyond cancer of the colon and/or rectum.

PURPOSE: Gaining a clear understanding of the health needs and concerns of people with cancer of the colon and/or rectum can help identify ways to offer a comprehensive care package. Our aim was to systematically assess the relevant literature and synthesise current available evidence. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched to identify studies employing qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Pre-specified selection criteria were applied to all retrieved records. Findings were integrated in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of 3709 references initially retrieved, 54 unique studies were retained. A total of 136 individual needs were identified and classified into eight domains. Just over half of the needs (70; 51%) concerned information/education or health system/patient-clinician communication issues. Emotional support and reassurance when trying to deal with fear of cancer recurrence featured as the most prominent need regardless of clinical stage or phase of treatment. Information about diet/nutrition and about long-term self-management of symptoms and complications at home; tackling issues relating to the quality and mode of delivery of health-related information; help with controlling fatigue; and on-going contact with a trustworthy health professional also featured as salient needs. Available research evidence is of moderate-to-good quality. CONCLUSIONS: Investing time to sensitively inquire about the supportive care needs of this patient population is key, whilst evaluating and re-shaping clinical interactions based on patients' priorities is equally essential. The diverse needs identified require a multi-professional and multi-agency approach to ensure unmet needs are addressed or measures offered.

Feasibility and Acceptability of the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Delivery of Nurse-Led, Supportive Care to Women With Cervical Cancer.

PURPOSE/AIMS: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be effectively used to uncover the unmet needs of women with cervical cancer for supportive care. Our aim was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of PROM-driven, nurse-led consultations to enhance delivery of supportive care to women with cervical cancer during active anticancer treatment. DESIGN: A 2-phased, mixed-method prospective study was conducted. Main research variables included feasibility and acceptability parameters of the trialed intervention. METHODS: Preconsultation PROM data were collected during 3 consecutive monthly consultations and used by the gynecology cancers nurse specialist (CNS) to deliver personalized supportive care. The problem checklist and Cervical Cancer Concerns Questionnaire were used to aid data collection. FINDINGS: Because of considerable recruitment challenges, a recruitment rate of 27% (3/11 patients) was achieved. Two patients completed all 3 study assessments. Seven in-clinic patient assessments were performed over 6 months. The study participants praised the opportunity for dedicated time for patients to raise concerns and for the CNS to provide sensitive and personalized support. CONCLUSION: Women with cervical cancer perceive important benefits from participating in PROM-driven, time-protected sessions with their CNS. Our findings provide tentative evidence to support the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention model and warrant future confirmation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: .

A systematic review of the supportive care needs of women living with and beyond cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with cervical cancer constitute a patient population in need for ongoing, person-centred supportive care. Our aim was to synthesise current available evidence with regard to the supportive care needs of women living with and beyond cervical cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement guidelines. Seven electronic databases (DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, BNI, PsychINFO and EMBASE) were searched to identify studies employing qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Pre-specified selection criteria were applied to all records published between 1990 and 2013. Methodological quality evaluation was conducted using the standardised QualSyst evaluation tool. Findings were integrated in a narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: Of 4936 references initially retrieved, 15 articles (13 unique studies) met eligibility criteria. One study fell below a pre-specified 55% threshold of methodological quality and was excluded. Individual needs were classified into ten domains of need. Interpersonal/intimacy (10; 83.3%), health system/information (8; 66.7%), psychological/emotional (7; 58.3%) and physical needs (6; 50%) were those most frequently explored. Spiritual/existential (1; 8.3%), family-related (2; 16.7%), practical (2; 16.7%), and daily living needs (2; 16.7%) were only rarely explored. Patient-clinician communication needs and social needs were addressed in 4 studies (33.3%). Dealing with fear of cancer recurrence, concerns about appearance/body image, lack of sexual desire, requiring more sexuality-related information, dealing with pain, and dealing with difficulties in relationship with partner were the most frequently cited individual needs (≥4 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a host of additional needs experienced by women with cervical cancer, a predominant focus on sexuality/intimacy and information seeking issues is noted. Study limitations preclude drawing conclusions as to how these needs evolve over time from diagnosis to treatment and subsequently to survivorship. Whether demographic or clinical variables such as age, race/ethnicity, disease stage or treatment modality play a moderating role, only remains to be answered in future studies.

Patient-reported outcome measures for the identification of supportive care needs in people with lung cancer: are we there yet?

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcome measures is a method of identifying and addressing supportive care needs (SCN) of people with lung cancer, which are often overlooked. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to identify and evaluate existing SCN tools previously used in studies with patients with lung cancer and to establish their suitability for use in research and clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and British Nursing Index databases to locate studies conducted between January 2000 and November 2010 that made use of validated self-report SCN tools with patients with lung cancer. RESULTS: Twelve articles introducing 8 instruments met prespecified selection criteria. All tools were appraised for their content, comprehensiveness, appropriateness, psychometric properties, and feasibility and acceptability. Only 1 lung cancer-specific SCN tool was identified. Whereas the majority of tools had acceptable psychometric properties, only 1 tool had gone through a systematic development process specifically in the context of lung cancer. Therefore, it is questionable whether existing tools can adequately identify healthcare needs that people with lung cancer consider most important. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure that SCNs of people with lung cancer are adequately and promptly identified, rigorous development and systematic testing of content-specific SCN tools are warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Collaborative work between patients with lung cancer, health professionals, and tool developers is required for an SCN tool not only to be content-specific but also to take into consideration the reality of clinical practice in providing supportive care to people with lung cancer.

A systematic review of supportive care needs of people living with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Supportive care for people living with a diagnosis of lung cancer is paramount. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the supportive care needs of people with lung cancer, and explore trends and gaps in the assessment of these needs emerging from this literature. METHODS: Through use of a wide range "free text" terms, a systematic search of five electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO and BNI) was carried out for the period between January 2000 and September 2012. Two validated scoring systems were used to appraise eligible studies for methodological quality and level of evidence. RESULTS: Based on pre-specified selection criteria, 59 articles (25 of quantitative methodology; 34 of qualitative methodology) reporting on 53 studies were retrieved and considered for further analysis. Overall, studies were of acceptable methodological quality. A wide spectrum of health care needs was evident among people with lung cancer. These needs were classified into nine domains: physical; daily living; psychological/emotional; spiritual/existential; informational; practical; patient-clinician communication; social and family-related; and cognitive. Daily living, practical, and cognitive needs were given less attention in this literature. CONCLUSIONS: People with lung cancer have a complex array of supportive care needs that impact on various life aspects. Yet, our knowledge still remains fragmentary. Embarking on new longitudinal exploratory studies and well-designed clinical trials is therefore strongly encouraged. The use of patient reported outcome measures as a clinical intervention tool may be viewed as a means of identifying and managing unmet needs in this patient population.

Breast cancer aware.

I read with interest the article by carol Davis in the October issue (Nursing Older People.22,8,6). The article summarised the findings of a UK study on age discrimination in breast cancer treatment. I have alerted colleagues in cancer care to the article to raise their awareness of this work. I have suggested that they reflect on their own area of practice and their role in treatment discussions and decisions as part of multiprofessional team meetings.