An audiovisual information resource to assist in the transition from completion of potentially curative treatment for cancer through to survivorship: a systematic development process

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.

METHODS

The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.

FINDINGS

150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.

INTERPRETATION

SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.

FUNDING

Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Study protocol for Enhancing Parenting In Cancer (EPIC): development and evaluation of a brief psycho-educational intervention to support parents with cancer who have young children

BACKGROUND

Parents with cancer have high rates of psychological morbidity, and their children are at risk of poor psychosocial outcomes, particularly in the context of parental distress and poor family communication. Parents express concerns about the impact of cancer on their children and report a lack of professional guidance in meeting their children's needs. Few parenting interventions exist and current interventions have extensive infrastructure demands making them unsuitable for routine use in most health settings. The aims of this study are to develop and establish the feasibility and acceptability of a novel and accessible psycho-educational intervention to improve parenting efficacy and decrease parental stress among adults with cancer who have children aged 3-12 years. The intervention will be suitable for parents with cancer who are receiving treatment with a view to longer term survival, irrespective of cancer diagnosis, and their respective co-parents.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study comprises two phases using the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions. In the development phase, intervention content will be iteratively developed and evaluated in consultation with consumers, and in the piloting phase, feasibility will be tested in a clinical sample of 20 parents with cancer and their co-parents using a single arm, pre-test post-test design. The intervention will comprise an audiovisual resource (DVD), a question prompt list, and a telephone call with a clinical psychologist. Questionnaires administered pre- and 1 month post-intervention will assess parental stress, psychological morbidity, quality of life, self-efficacy and perceptions of child adjustment, and family functioning. Intervention feasibility will be determined by mixed-method participant evaluation of perceived usefulness, benefits, and acceptability.

DISCUSSION

This new initiative will translate existing descriptive evidence into an accessible intervention that supports parenting during cancer treatment and meets the information needs of parents with cancer and their families. This is an important advance: despite increasing recognition of the impact of parental cancer on the family, intervention research lags behind the descriptive literature. This low-intensity, accessible, and targeted intervention places minimal burden on infrastructure and promotes patient autonomy and self-management. If feasible, this style of intervention may be a template for future interventions with similar populations.

Technology use and its association with health and depressive symptoms in older cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Acknowledging the expanding influence of technology in the promotion of health and wellness, this study assessed the role of information and communication technology (ICT) use in the lives of older cancer survivors.

METHODS

A community sample of cancer survivors aged 65 and older (N = 1411) was extracted from a 2011 U.S. National Health and Aging Trends Study dataset. Weighted multiple regression and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the relationships between survey respondents' ICT use and their self-rated health status and depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents reported rarely or never engaging in ICT use. Greater use of communication technology such as emailing or texting was associated with decreased risk for severe depressive symptoms and higher self-rated health status. Information technology use was not associated with depressive symptoms and self-rated health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigation into reasons behind older cancer survivors' apparent low rates of engagement with ICT is warranted, particularly the examination of access as a potential barrier. Findings indicated that frequent use of communication technology was positively linked with mental and physical wellness. The nature of the relationships between communication technology use and physical and mental health merits further research, helping to determine whether community-based educational efforts to improve technology access and skills may benefit the growing population of older cancer survivors.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nurse-Led Supportive Care Package (SurvivorCare) for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) and its treatments can cause distressing sequelae. We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial aiming to improve psychological distress, supportive care needs (SCNs), and quality of life (QOL) of patients with CRC. The intervention, called SurvivorCare (SC), comprised educational materials, needs assessment, survivorship care plan, end-of-treatment session, and three follow-up telephone calls.

METHODS

At the end of treatment for stage I-III CRC, eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care (UC) or to UC plus SC. Distress (Brief Symptom Inventory 18), SCNs (Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs measure), and QOL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QOL questionnaires C30 and EORTC CRC module CR29) were assessed at baseline and at 2 and 6 months (follow-up 1 [FU1] and FU2, respectively). The primary hypothesis was that SC would have a beneficial effect on distress at FU1. The secondary hypotheses were that SC would have a beneficial effect on (a) SCN and QOL at FU1 and on (b) distress, SCNs, and QOL at FU2. A total of 15 items assessed experience of care.

RESULTS

Of 221 patients randomly assigned, 4 were ineligible for the study and 1 was lost to FU, leaving 110 in the UC group and 106 in the SC group. Patients' characteristics included the following: median age, 64 years; men, 52%; colon cancer, 56%; rectal cancer, 35%; overlapping sites of disease, 10%; stage I disease, 7%; stage II, 22%; stage III, 71%. Baseline distress and QOL scores were similar to population norms. Between-group differences in distress at FU1 (primary outcome) and at FU2, and SCNs and QOL at FU1 and FU2 were small and nonsignificant. Patients in the SC group were more satisfied with survivorship care than those in the UC group (significant differences on 10 of 15 items).

CONCLUSION

The addition of SC to UC did not have a beneficial effect on distress, SCNs, or QOL outcomes, but patients in the SC group were more satisfied with care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Some survivors of colorectal cancer report distressing effects after completing treatment. Strategies to identify and respond to survivors' issues are needed. In a randomized controlled trial, the addition of a nurse-led supportive care package (SurvivorCare) to usual post-treatment care did not impact survivors' distress, quality of life, or unmet needs. However, patients receiving the SurvivorCare intervention were more satisfied with survivorship care. Factors for consideration in the design of subsequent studies are discussed.

Evaluating a nurse-led survivorship care package (SurvivorCare) for bowel cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women in Australia. The illness and related treatments can cause distressing adverse effects, impact on emotional and psychological well-being, and adversely affect social, occupational and relationship functioning for many years after the end of treatment or, in fact, lifelong. Current models of follow-up fail to address the complex needs arising after treatment completion. Strategies to better prepare and support survivors are urgently required. We previously developed a nurse-led supportive care program (SurvivorCare) and tested it in a pilot study involving 10 CRC survivors. The intervention was found to be highly acceptable, appropriate, relevant and useful.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a multisite, randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the impact of the addition of the SurvivorCare intervention to usual post-treatment care, for people with potentially cured CRC. SurvivorCare comprises the provision of survivorship educational materials, a tailored survivorship care plan, an individually tailored nurse-led, face-to-face end of treatment consultation and three subsequent telephone calls. Eligible patients have completed treatment for potentially cured CRC. Other eligibility criteria include stage I to III disease, age greater than 18 years and adequate understanding of English. All consenting patients complete questionnaires at three time points over a six-month period (baseline, two and six months). Measures assess psychological distress, unmet needs and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

This supportive care package has the potential to significantly reduce individual suffering, whilst reducing the burden of follow-up on acute cancer services through enhanced engagement with and utilisation of general practitioners and community based services. If the intervention is successful in achieving the expected health benefits, it could be disseminated readily. All training and supporting materials have been developed and standardised. Furthermore, the intervention could easily be adapted to other cancer or chronic disease settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12610000207011.

What should a support program for people with lung cancer look like? Differing attitudes of patients and support group facilitators

INTRODUCTION

Patients with lung cancer have higher levels of unmet need for psychosocial support than those with other cancers. However, uptake of existing support programs by patients with lung cancer is low. We explored this issue by seeking the views of patients and support group facilitators.

METHODS

Surveys of a convenience sample of 100 patients with lung cancer and all support group facilitators registered with Cancer Council Victoria (n = 145) were performed. Respondents were asked about preferred content, location, running, and potential barriers to attendance of a lung cancer support program.

RESULTS

The response rate from facilitators was 51%. Fifty-three percent of patients reported willingness to attend a support program, although only 12% had previously attended a group. Patients showed a preference for any program to be held at a hospital (p = 0.01), whereas facilitators preferred a community setting (p < 0.001). Patients preferred facilitation by a health professional, rather than a volunteer p < 0.001), whereas facilitators preferred a volunteer. Patients preferred sessions primarily focused on cancer information provision rather than emotional support, whereas facilitators rated emotional support as highly as cancer information. Overall, patients perceived fewer barriers to attendance than facilitators. Both agreed that a group environment, discussing their cancer, parking, and travel were barriers to attendance.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in the views of patients and facilitators about the preferred location, type of facilitator, and content of a support program may in part explain the poor uptake of existing support programs by patients with lung cancer and should be considered in the design of future programs.