The experiences of patients with oesophageal cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy treatment: a qualitative study embedded in the SCOPE2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study explored patients' experiences and perceptions of the SCOPE2 trial. SCOPE2 examined radiotherapy dose escalation in patients with inoperable oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT). SETTING: Recruitment at five clinical sites in England and Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: SCOPE2 trial participants were invited to take part in interviews from across five clinical sites. Participants self-selected to take part in up to three interviews across four different time points: baseline (before treatment) and at 2-3 months, 3-6 months or 6 months+ after baseline. There were five female and five male interview participants. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to standard dose dCRT prescribed carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/capecitabine, or an escalated dose dCRT prescribed carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/capecitabine. METHODS: This qualitative study used semistructured longitudinal interviews to explore the impact of treatment on patient outlook and quality of life and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interview data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: 10 patients participated in 16 longitudinal interviews. Three participants were accompanied by companions. Participants experienced side-effects from radiotherapy and chemotherapy including nausea, throat pain, difficulties eating and regaining appetite, thrombosis and fatigue, although most of these symptoms gradually improved. Participants required more ongoing information and support regarding treatment side-effects and cancer status in order to improve their overall quality of life. Best practice examples involved key contacts providing practical advice and signposting support. CONCLUSION: Participants of the SCOPE2 trial reported short and longer-term side-effects from chemoradiotherapy, but these usually lessened over time. Participants attempted to be positive about their survival prospects by readjusting their expectations, priorities and lifestyles. Providing patients with ongoing opportunities to discuss detailed and timely information regarding treatment side-effects, aftercare and cancer status could improve the overall health and well-being of patients during oesophageal cancer trials and pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02741856; ISRCTN: 97125464.

Virtual consultations: the experience of oncology and palliative care healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To maintain continuity of care during the Covid-19 pandemic, virtual consultations (VC) became the mainstay of patient-healthcare practitioner interactions. The aim of this study was to explore the views of oncology and palliative care healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding the medium of VC. METHOD: A cross sectional mixed methodology observational study of oncology and palliative care HCPs, analysed via an inductive thematic approach. This was undertaken in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. RESULTS: 87 surveys were completed. Three master themes were identified. Personal, professional, and familial factors including patient age, illness and VC skillset all influenced practitioner's experience of VC. Relationships and connection were highlighted by survey respondents as important influences, with a perception that VC could reduce usual relationships with patients, compared to previous face-to-face consults. There was a perceived loss in these domains with VC. Sharing bad news and having challenging conversations was seen as particularly difficult via VC. Many survey respondents emphasized that they preferred to have first time consultations face-to-face, and not virtually. Within the domain of logistical and practical implications reduced travel and increased accessibility were seen as a significant benefit of VC. The inability to examine patients and concerns regarding missing clinical signs was emphasised as a significant worry, alongside the challenges faced with occasionally failing technology. CONCLUSION: VC were felt to have a role for those patients who are already known to professionals, where there was an established relationship. VC for difficult discussions and for unstable patients were felt to be inadequate. Triaging patient suitability prior to offering VC, with emphasis on the importance of patient choice, was seen as a priority in this new era of VC.

Barriers and facilitators to engaging in smoking cessation support among lung screening participants.

INTRODUCTION: Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the UK; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted between August 2019 - April 2021 with thirty adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioural factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimising beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, COVID-19 and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centred care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programmes.

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study.

Background: Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution. Methods: A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified. Results: In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting. Conclusions: A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment. AIMS: To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials). METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set. RESULTS: 130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.

Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision-aids and shared decision-making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes. METHODS: We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory. RESULTS: From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research.

"I don't want to hear statistics, I want real life stories": Systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient and caregiver experiences of Proton Beam Therapy.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) is an advanced form of radiotherapy, yet little evidence exists on patient experience to inform decision making and improve future care. We thematically synthesized the qualitative evidence of patient and caregivers' perceptions and experiences of PBT. LITERATURE SEARCH: Five electronic databases were systematically searched, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. Two reviewers independently screened search results for qualitative studies relating to patients' and caregivers' experiences of PBT. The search generated 4,020 records, of which nine were eligible. Study quality (assessed by CASP checklist) varied. DATA SYNTHESIS: Qualitative results were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Three main themes were generated: decision making and perceptions, living in the PBT "bubble," and coping with the cancer treatment journey. CONCLUSIONS: PBT is not yet widely accessible worldwide, which uniquely influences the patient experience. Our review uncovers areas PBT providers could target to improve patient-centered care; however, additional primary qualitative research is recommended.

Parental perspectives on the grief and support needs of children and young people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative findings from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many children and young people have experienced the death of close family members, whilst also facing unprecedented disruption to their lives. This study aimed to investigate the experiences and support needs of bereaved children and young people from the perspective of their parents and guardians. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional qualitative free-text data from a survey of adults bereaved in the UK during the pandemic. Participants were recruited via media, social media, national associations and community/charitable organisations. Thematic analysis was conducted on free text data collected from parent/guardian participants in response to a survey question on the bereavement experiences and support needs of their children. RESULTS: Free-text data from 104 parent/guardian participants was included. Three main themes were identified: the pandemic-related challenges and struggles experienced by children and young people; family support and coping; and support from schools and services. Pandemic-challenges include the impacts of being separated from the relative prior to their death, isolation from peers and other family members, and disruption to daily routines and wider support networks. Examples were given of effective family coping and communication, but also of difficulties relating to parental grief and children's existing mental health problems. Schools and bereavement organisations' provision of specialist support was valued, but there was evidence of unmet need, with some participants reporting a lack of access to specialist grief or mental health support. CONCLUSION: Children and young people have faced additional strains and challenges associated with pandemic bereavement. We recommend resources and initiatives that facilitate supportive communication within family and school settings, adequate resourcing of school and community-based specialist bereavement/mental health services, and increased information and signposting to the support that is available.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study.

INTRODUCTION: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236979.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent. AIM: To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set. DESIGN: The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021. RESULTS: A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.