Proactive community support tailored to holistic needs: A cohort study

Experiences of being a family caregiver to a patient treated for oesophageal cancer-1 year after surgery

Purpose

There is a need to put family caregivers on the cancer survivorship research agenda. Therefore, the aim of this is study is to explore the experiences of being a family caregiver to a patient treated for oesophageal cancer.

Method

This qualitative study was based on the ongoing nationwide and prospective Oesophageal Surgery on Cancer patients – Adaptation and Recovery study (OSCAR) including patients surgically treated for oesophageal cancer in Sweden and their closest family caregiver. One year after the patient’s surgery, each family caregiver received a self-report questionnaire kit to fill in. For the purpose of this study, the responses to the open-ended question “Is there anything else you would like to share?” were used and analysed by conducting thematic analysis.

Results

In total, 112 responses to the open-ended question were transcribed and analysed. The text rendered three themes:

Discontinued support from healthcare—mostly a positive experience before surgery and in the acute survivorship phase. However, after discharge from the hospital, the family caregiver felt as though they were left alone, fully responsible for the patient’s care.

A changed life—unprepared for life-changing situation after the patient received the cancer diagnosis. A feeling that nothing will ever be the same and like your sense of self is lost.

Psychological distress—was described as a feeling of being alone. Family caregivers felt invisible and no longer important to family and friends. The patient was the one that mattered.

Conclusion

This study indicates that patients and family caregivers would benefit from a more family-centred healthcare, where the patients’ as well as the caregivers’ perspectives would be acknowledged.

Improving access to cancer information and supportive care services: A systematic review of mechanisms applied to link people with cancer to psychosocial supportive care services

OBJECTIVE

Previous research has described the low uptake of psychosocial support services in people living with cancer. While characteristics of individuals using services have been examined, mechanisms applied to link individuals to support services are less frequently considered. This review aims to identify the mechanisms used to link people with cancer to support services and assess their impact.

METHODS

Systematic searches of Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were conducted up to May 2020. Studies reporting service use associated with mechanisms to link adults with cancer to support services targeting emotional, informational, practical or social support needs were eligible. Eligible study designs included controlled trials, pre-post designs and observational studies. Study quality was assessed and a narrative synthesis of findings undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 10 papers (from 8,037 unique titles) were eligible. Testing the feasibility of the linkage mechanism was the primary aim in five (50%) studies. Three linkage mechanisms were identified: (a) outreach from the support service; (b) clinician recommendation/referral; (c) mailed invitation. Outreach was the most successful in connecting people with cancer to services (52%-90% use); clinician recommendation/referral was least successful (3%-28%). The impact of different linkage mechanisms for different demographic groups was not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Outreach from services shows the most potential for increasing access to support services. However, the limited number of studies and limitations in the types of support services people with cancer were linked to, demonstrated the need for further work in this area. Identifying mechanisms that are effective for underserved, high-needs patient groups is also needed.

Meeting psychosocial needs to improve health: a prospective cohort study

Background

Cancer impacts on patients and their families across a range of different domains. For that reason, optimal cancer care has moved away from a disease-centric focus to a more holistic approach in order to proactively support people with their individual needs and concerns. While international policy clearly advocates this agenda, implementation into routine care is limited. Therefore, relevant interventions that measurably improve patient outcomes are essential to understand if this ideal is to become routine multidisciplinary practice. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of a proactive, holistic, community-based intervention on health-related quality of life in a cohort of people diagnosed with cancer. Secondary aim was to explore the relationship between changes in health status and: cancer type, cancer stage, number of concerns expressed and change in severity of concerns pre and post intervention.

Method

Prospective observational cohort study. A convenience sample of 437 individuals were referred to the service ‘Improving the Cancer Journey (ICJ) in the UK. Each completed the Euroqol EQ-5D-3 L and visual analogue scale (VAS) and a Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA) during initial visit to the service and again at follow-up review, median 84 days later. Change between scores was tested with paired t-tests and relationships between variables with multiple regression models with heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors.

Results

Participants were White British with median age between 50 and 64 years. Cancer type and stage were varied. EQ-5D utility scores improved at follow-up by 0.121 [0.0891–0.153], p < .001, and VAS scores improved by 7.81 [5.88–9.74], p < .001. The strongest predictor of change was a decrease in severity of concerns. Cancer stage ‘palliative care’ contributed to a reduction in health status.

Conclusion

This study is the first to show that a holistic community intervention dedicated to supporting the individual concerns of participants had both a statistically significant and clinically meaningful impact on participants’ health-related quality of life. The mean change in EQ-5D scores was more than the ‘minimally important clinical difference’ described in the literature. This is important because while quality of life has multiple determinants, this study has shown for the first time that it is possible to capture a clinically meaningful improvement as a function of reducing someone’s personally identified concerns.

A J curve of interprofessional change: co-locating non-health partners in an oncology unit

BACKGROUND

Internationally, clinicians face increased demand, pressure on resources and unmet patient needs. A community social support service was co-located within cancer clinics in Glasgow, Scotland to help address some of these needs.

AIM

To analyse the impact of the service on clinical staff and to propose an explanatory theory of change.

METHOD

Qualitative exploratory design, using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with 8 nurse specialists and 2 medical oncologists from lung, breast, head and neck, and gastrointestinal oncology teams in Glasgow in 2018-2019.

FINDINGS

Four themes captured this process: 'The conversation', 'A better experience', 'Freedom to focus' and 'Working hand in hand'.

CONCLUSION

Together, these four themes explained the process of effective interprofessional working. This process would have been predicted by the J-curve literature on diffusion of innovations. Linking J-curve theory to this successful process provides new understanding that could prove essential for clinical teams who are implementing change within their practice.

A qualitative study on the perceived impact of using an integrated community-based supportive cancer service

OBJECTIVE

"Improving the Cancer Journey" (ICJ) is an original, community-based, multidisciplinary service offering holistic support to people diagnosed with cancer in Scotland. It is the first service of its kind in the UK. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of people who have used this service.

METHOD

Twenty service users were purposively sampled to capture a diverse range of age, sex, cancer types, and deprivation status. Semi-structured interviews explored their experiences of using ICJ. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Thirteen women and seven men (mean age 58 years) were interviewed. Three themes were identified: "one person, one place," "routes to unexpected support" and "safety net."

CONCLUSION

Improving the Cancer Journey was perceived to be beneficial because it met the holistic needs of the ICJ service users. By helping people address concerns earlier rather than later, it prevented problems becoming unmanageable. Having an accessible expert to guide and support them through a range of services provided reassurance and created the space to self-manage at a time of distress. These original findings are internationally relevant because there is little evidence on the impact of holistic support services from the patient perspective.

Proactive community support tailored to holistic needs: A cohort study

Background

It is increasingly internationally recognized that a cancer diagnosis impacts on people practically and financially as well as physically and psychologically. It is less clear what to do about this. This study introduces an original community service designed to mitigate this wider impact. Nonclinical “link officers” use holistic needs assessment (HNA) to help newly diagnosed people identify and quantify the severity of their physical, psychological, practical, financial, and social concerns. A care plan is then agreed, usually involving community interventions from partner agencies. Following intervention, assessment is repeated. The primary aim of this study was to establish whether there was a significant difference between initial assessment and follow‐up, postintervention. Secondary aim was to identify potential predictors of increased levels of concern at baseline and follow‐up.

Method

Pre‐ and postintervention observational cohort study. Paired t test examined the difference in mean (SD) concern severity between baseline and follow‐up. Multiple linear regression models were computed to hypothesize potential predictors of initial concern severity and severity change.

Results

The service saw 2413 people 2014‐2017. Participants identified average 5.5 (4.7) concerns, financial concerns being most frequent. Mean severity at baseline was 7.12 (out of 10) (2.50), reducing to 3.83 (3.49) post‐treatment, paired t(4454) = 64.68, P < 0.0001, reduction of 3.31 (95% CI 3.21‐3.41). Factors associated with higher initial concern included unemployment and caring responsibilities. Unemployment was also associated with a smaller reduction of concern severity at follow‐up.

Conclusion

Patient level of concern went from a level associated with specialist referral to a much more manageable level. This original finding is internationally significant because it extends Khera et al's (2017) “provocative idea” that all patients should be screened for financial problems to show that they can be helped with all their concerns. This article describes a successful, transferable model of community care.