Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing

Electronic symptom monitoring for home-based palliative care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Coordination and communication challenges in home-based palliative care complicate transitions from hospital care. Electronic symptom monitoring enables real-time data collection, enhancing patient-provider communication. However, a systematic evaluation of its effectiveness in home-based palliative care is lacking.

AIM

To analyze the feasibility, effectiveness, and limitations of electronic symptom monitoring in home-based palliative care, assess the evidence quality, identify the evidence gap, and suggest implications for future research and practice.

DESIGN

This study uses systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis (CRD42023457977) to analyze relevant studies until September 2023.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase until September 2023, complemented by hand-searching of references and citations.

RESULTS

This study included twenty studies. The majority of patients positively engage in electronic symptom monitoring, which could improve their quality of life, physical and emotional well-being, and symptom scores without a significant increase in costs. However, firm conclusions about the effects of electronic symptom monitoring on outcomes like survival, hospital admissions, length of stay, emergency visits, and adverse events were limited due to significant variability in the reported data or inadequate statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Introducing electronic symptom monitoring in home-based palliative care holds potential for enhancing patient-reported outcomes, potentially decreasing hospital visits and costs. However, inconsistency in current studies arising from diverse monitoring systems obstructs comparability. To advance, future high-quality research should employ standardized follow-up periods and established scales to better grasp the benefits of electronic symptom monitoring in home-based palliative care.

[A look into the neighboring discipline: eHealth in oncology]

Digitalization is dramatically changing the entire healthcare system. Keywords such as artificial intelligence, electronic patient files (ePA), electronic prescriptions (eRp), telemedicine, wearables, augmented reality and digital health applications (DiGA) represent the digital transformation that is already taking place. Digital becomes real! This article outlines the state of research and development, current plans and ongoing uses of digital tools in oncology in the first half of 2024. The possibilities for using artificial intelligence and the use of DiGAs in oncology are presented in more detail in this overview according to their stage of development as they already show a noticeable benefit in oncology.

Determination of Nursing Care Times Based on the Perroca Patient Classification Instrument in the Inpatient Oncology Unit: A Mixed Method Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the daily nursing care times of hospitalized inpatient oncology unit patients according to degree of acuity using the Perroca Patient Classification tool.

DATA SOURCES

This study used a mixed method sequential explanatory design. The "Nursing Activity Record Form" and "Perroca Patient Classification Instrument" were used for quantitative data collection, and direct observation was performed for 175 hours via time-motion study. Descriptive statistics, between-group comparison, and correlation analysis were used for data analysis. Using a semistructured questionnaire, qualitative data were collected from individual in-depth interviews with seven nurses who participated in the quantitative part of the study. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis. The reporting of this study followed GRAMMS checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the integration of quantitative and qualitative data, daily nursing care duration was determined as 2 to 2.5 hours for Type 1 patients, 2.6 to 3.5 hours for Type 2 patients, 3.6 to 4.75 hours for Type 3 patients, and 4.76 to 5.5 hours for Type 4 patients. The findings showed that in an inpatient oncology unit, nursing care hours increased as patients' Perroca Patient Classification Instrument acuity grade increased; thus, the instrument was discriminative in determining patients' degree of acuity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurse managers can utilize this study's results to plan daily assignments that are sensitive to patient care needs. The results can also help nurse managers to identify relationships between nurse staffing and patient outcomes at the unit level, as well as to develop ways to analyze such relationships.

Advantages and Challenges of Using Telehealth for Home-Based Palliative Care: Systematic Mixed Studies Review

BACKGROUND

Owing to the increasing number of people with palliative care needs and the current shortage of health care professionals (HCPs), providing quality palliative care has become challenging. Telehealth could enable patients to spend as much time as possible at home. However, no previous systematic mixed studies reviews have synthesized evidence on patients' experiences of the advantages and challenges of telehealth in home-based palliative care.

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic mixed studies review, we aimed to critically appraise and synthesize the findings from studies that investigated patients' use of telehealth in home-based palliative care, focusing on the advantages and challenges experienced by patients.

METHODS

This is a systematic mixed studies review with a convergent design. The review is reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. A systematic search was performed in the following databases: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods; studies that investigated the experience of using telehealth with follow-up from HCPs of home-based patients aged ≥18; studies published between January 2010 and June 2022; and studies published in Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, English, Portuguese, or Spanish in peer-reviewed journals. Five pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies, appraised methodological quality, and extracted data. The data were synthesized using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

This systematic mixed studies review included 41 reports from 40 studies. The following 4 analytical themes were synthesized: potential for a support system and self-governance at home; visibility supports interpersonal relationships and a joint understanding of care needs; optimized information flow facilitates tailoring of remote caring practices; and technology, relationships, and complexity as perpetual obstacles in telehealth.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of telehealth were that patients experience a potential support system that could enable them to remain at home, and the visual features of telehealth enable them to build interpersonal relationships with HCPs over time. Self-reporting provides HCPs with information about symptoms and circumstances that facilitates tailoring care to specific patients. Challenges with the use of telehealth were related to barriers to technology use and inflexible reporting of complex and fluctuating symptoms and circumstances using electronic questionnaires. Few studies have included the self-reporting of existential or spiritual concerns, emotions, and well-being. Some patients perceived telehealth as intrusive and a threat to their privacy at home. To optimize the advantages and minimize the challenges with the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care, future research should include users in the design and development process.

Multidisciplinary approach, continuous care and opioid management in cancer pain: case series and review of the literature

Underlying cancer pain has heterogenous aetiologies and mechanisms. It requires detailed and comprehensive pain assessment, combined with personalized treatment. A multidisciplinary team is essential to providing the best management of cancer pain at every disease stage, improving the quality of life and outcomes in patients with cancer. This narrative literature review emphasizes the value of providing all patients with multidisciplinary pain management in their preferred care setting. Real-life experiences are also reported to witness the efforts of physicians to properly manage cancer pain. This article is part of the Management of breakthrough cancer pain Special Issue: https://www.drugsincontext.com/special_issues/management-of-breakthrough-cancer-pain.

Development of an evidence‑based, theory‑driven, and culturally appropriate character strengths-based intervention for breast cancer patients, following the Medical Research Council Framework

PURPOSE

To design and develop a complex, evidence‑based, theory‑driven, and culturally appropriate character strengths-based intervention (CSI) for breast cancer patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework.

METHODS

From 2018 September to 2020 November, a complex intervention perspective was adopted. The rationale, methods, and processes employed in carrying out the study were reported. The acceptability and feasibility of intervention program were evaluated as a part of subsequent pilot study. Based on piloting, a refined and optimized definitive intervention was obtained. The development of the intervention is an iterative process involving input from three key stakeholders: experts, medical staff, and patient representatives.

RESULTS

The systematic review revealed CSIs were effective and the selected theory served as a guide and indicated theory-inspired modifications. A representative team of breast cancer patients and oncology nurses collaboratively developed and tailored the intervention content and format with attention to the acceptability and feasibility. Five main strategies, including peripheral, evidential, linguistic, constituent-involving, and sociocultural strategies, were used to achieve and strengthen the cultural appropriateness. After the pilot phase, several refinements were made on the CSI program, such as editorial changes in the booklet or alternative suggestions for difficult strengths-based activities (e.g., outdoor activities). All participants not only expressed satisfaction with the program in process evaluation, but also reported perceived benefits such as enjoyable and sociable experience, better well-being, and increased confidence.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of the MRC framework, theory guidance, and suggestions from stakeholders during intervention development can optimize uptake and sustainability in the clinical setting. It is recommended that randomized controlled trial be used in future studies to assess the intervention, the process and the mechanisms of the intervention. Our approach may offer implications for the design and implementation of similar initiatives to support cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Register Identifier: NCT04219267, 07/01/2020, retrospectively registered.

Health Care Professionals’ Experiences and Perspectives on Using Telehealth for Home-based Palliative Care: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Telehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care (HBPC). It may improve access to health care professionals (HCPs) at patients' homes, reduce hospital admissions, enhance patients' feelings of security and safety, and increase the time spent at home for patients in HBPC. HBPC requires the involvement of various HCPs such as nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, dietitians, psychologists, religious counselors, and social workers. Acceptance of the use of technology among HCPs is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of HCPs regarding the use of telehealth in HBPC.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to systematically map published studies on HCPs' experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley. The review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A systematic search was performed in AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022. The reference lists of the included papers were hand searched to identify additional studies. The inclusion criteria were (1) studies using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; (2) studies including HCPs using telehealth with patients in HBPC; (3) studies on HCPs' experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in HBPC; (4) studies published between January 1, 2000, and August 23, 2022; and (5) studies published in English, Portuguese, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, or Spanish. Pairs of authors independently included studies and extracted data. The first 2 stages of thematic synthesis were used to thematically organize the data.

RESULTS

This scoping review included 29 papers from 28 studies. Four descriptive themes were identified: (1) easy to use but technological issues undermine confidence, (2) adds value but personal and organizational barriers challenge adoption, (3) potential to provide useful and meaningful patient-reported data, and (4) mutual trust as a prerequisite for interpersonal relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth in HBPC seems to be easy to use and may improve the coordination of care, time efficiency, clinical assessments, and help build and enhance personal and professional relationships. However, the introduction of technology in HBPC is complex, as it may not align well with the overall aim of palliative care from HCPs' point of view. Further, changes in practice and requirements for HCPs may reduce motivation for the use of telehealth in HBPC. HCPs consider themselves to have central roles in implementing telehealth, and a lack of acceptance and motivation is a key barrier to telehealth adoption. Policy makers and telehealth developers should be aware of this potential barrier when developing or implementing new technology for use in HBPC.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/33305.

Content features and its implementation in novel app-based psycho-oncological interventions for cancer survivors: a narrative review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The interest in and availability of app-based psycho-oncological interventions for cancer survivors has grown rapidly. In this narrative review, we therefore aim to provide an overview of the psychological content features included in psycho-oncological apps and how the content is implemented in the apps.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 19 studies (six randomized controlled trials, six studies with prepost design, five study protocols and two app developments), all published in the last 18 months (July 2020 to December 2021), were analyzed in terms of the described app-based interventions and their psycho-oncological content. Apps for cancer survivors are conducted for a variety of different diagnoses and often target a specific patient population, for example patients with a specific therapy. The most frequent content features are psychoeducation, self-monitoring of symptoms, and some sort of exercise or relaxation program. Depending on the app's purpose, some offer specific content, such as decision aids, medication schedules or modules to improve coping strategies. Most apps combine informative and interactive elements.

SUMMARY

Psycho-oncological apps for cancer survivors target many relevant psychological problem areas and aim to improve patient empowerment. Available mHealth interventions can therefore be seen as a good complement for cancer care and also offer the possibility to improve patient involvement.

Technology-Based Interventions for Cancer Caregivers: Concept Analysis

Background

Cancer is a taxing chronic disease that demands substantial care, most of which is shouldered by informal caregivers. As a result, cancer caregivers often have to manage considerable challenges that could result in severe physical and psychological health consequences. Technology-based interventions have the potential to address many, if not all, of the obstacles caregivers encounter while caring for patients with cancer. However, although the application of technology-based interventions is on the rise, the term is seldom defined in research or practice. Considering that the lack of conceptual clarity of the term could compromise the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers, timely research is needed to bridge this gap.

Objective

This study aims to clarify the meaning of technology-based interventions in the context of cancer caregiving and provide a definition that can be used by cancer caregivers, patients, clinicians, and researchers to facilitate evidence-based research and practice.

Methods

The 8-step concept analysis method by Walker and Avant was used to analyze the concept of technology-based interventions in the context of cancer caregiving. PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for studies that examined technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers.

Results

The defining attributes of technology-based interventions were recognized as being accessible, affordable, convenient, and user-friendly. On the basis of insights gained on the defining attributes, antecedents to, and consequences of technology-based interventions through the concept analysis process, technology-based interventions were defined as the use of technology to design, develop, and deliver health promotion contents and strategies aimed at inducing or improving positive physical or psychological health outcomes in cancer caregivers.

Conclusions

This study clarified the meaning of technology-based interventions in the context of cancer caregiving and provided a clear definition that can be used by caregivers, patients, clinicians, and researchers to facilitate evidence-based oncology practice. A clear conceptualization of technology-based interventions lays foundations for better intervention design and research outcomes, which in turn have the potential to help health care professionals address the needs and preferences of cancer caregivers more cost-effectively.

What to Do and What Not to Do in the Management of Cancer Pain: A Physician Survey and Expert Recommendations

Background

Despite the prevalence of pain among patients with cancer and the availability of pertinent guidelines, the clinical management of oncological pain is decisively insufficient. To address this issue, we evaluated current trends in clinical practice and subsequently generated a list of ten corrective actions—five things to do and five things not to do—for the diagnosis, management, and monitoring of cancer pain.

Methods

The survey included 18 questions about clinical practice surrounding background pain and breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). Survey questions were developed by a scientific board of 10 physician experts and communicated via email to an expanded panel of physicians in Italy. Responses were tabulated descriptively for analysis.

Results

Of 51 invited physicians, 32 (63%) provided complete survey responses. The responses revealed several incongruencies with current guideline recommendations: physicians did not always diagnose or monitor pain using diagnostically validated or disease-specific instruments; frequently based clinical decision-making on time availability or convenience; and pharmacological therapy was often inappropriate (eg, prescribing NSAIDs or corticosteroids for BTcP). The list of corrective actions generated by the scientific board favored a guideline-oriented approach that systematically characterizes oncological pain and implements treatment based on pain characteristics (eg, fast-acting transmucosal opioids for BTcP) and evidence-based recommendations.

Conclusion

Oncologists require better education and training about the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of oncological pain. Physicians should be aware of current guideline recommendations as well as available pharmacological tools for BTcP.