Impact of treatment summaries for cancer survivors: a systematic review

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review

PURPOSE

A "cancer care review" (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022.

RESULTS

Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders' views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice.

The PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention: A European harmonised approach to person-centred guideline-based survivorship care after childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care, although endorsed, is not available for the majority of adult survivors of childhood, adolescence and young adult (CAYA) cancer. Barriers to implementation include lack of time, knowledge, personnel and funding. Sustainable solutions are urgently needed to address the needs of CAYA cancer survivors to improve the quality of life and reduce the burden of late effects on survivors, health care systems and society. The European Union-funded PanCareFollowUp project, initiated by the Pan-European Network for Care of Survivors after Childhood and Adolescent Cancer, was established to facilitate the implementation of person-centred survivorship care across Europe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention was co-developed with survivors as part of the PanCareFollowUp project. It is a person-centred approach to survivorship care, supported by guidelines and with flexibility to adapt to local health care settings. The Care Intervention consists of three steps: (1) previsit completion of a Survivor Questionnaire (by the survivor) and Treatment Summary (by the health care provider [HCP]), (2) a clinic visit including shared decision-making, and (3) a follow-up call to finalise the individualised Survivorship Care Plan.

RESULTS

We developed the key components of the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention: a PanCareFollowUp Survivor Questionnaire, Treatment Summary template, Survivorship Care Plan template, and educational materials for HCPs and survivors. Wide implementation of the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention will be supported with a freely distributed Replication Manual on completion of the PanCareFollowUp project.

CONCLUSIONS

The PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention will support the implementation of person-centred, guideline-based LTFU care in different health care settings across Europe to improve survivors' health and well-being.

Thai oncology nurses' perspectives toward survivorship care plan components and implementation for colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To describe oncology nurses' perspectives regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) components and implementation for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Thailand.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, descriptive online study was conducted between October and November 2020. Thai oncology nurses were recruited using Facebook and the Line application. Study participants (n = 160) rated the usefulness of four standard SCP components (treatment summaries, surveillance, late/long-term effects, and health promotion and psychosocial needs; n = 23 items) and gave input on the implementation of SCPs in clinical practice (n = 11 items). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Most oncology nurses supported providing CRC survivors with SCPs (93.2%) and felt that SCPs were an important part of their practice (93.7%). Nurses rated all four SCP components as "very useful," including treatment summaries (76.4%), surveillance (81.9%), late/long-term effects (85.7%), and health behavior and psychosocial concerns (80.2%). In terms of implementation, most nurses indicated that oncologists should prepare (84.4%) and provide SCPs (95%), but 61.9% and 69.4% of nurses, respectively, also believed that they should perform these tasks. In addition, most nurses indicated that they should play a significant role in the ongoing management of CRC survivors (95.7%) and that evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed (96.2%).

CONCLUSION

Oncology nurses believed that the four SCP components were helpful to the long-term management of CRC survivors, supported SCP provision, and expressed their perceived responsibilities for preparing and delivering SCPs. The findings suggested opportunities for oncology nurses to play a significant role in developing and implementing SCPs. However, additional efforts are needed to expand nurses' roles in survivorship care and establish practice guidelines that will facilitate integration of SCPs into nursing practice.

The impacts of and outcomes from telehealth delivered in prisons: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

While the delivery of healthcare services within prison systems is underpinned by different models, access to timely and optimal healthcare is often constrained by multifaceted factors. Telehealth has been used as an alternative approach to conventional care. To date, much of the focus has been on evaluation of telehealth interventions within certain geographical contexts such as rural and remote communities. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence base to date for the impacts of, and outcomes from, telehealth delivered in prisons.

METHODS

This systematic review was underpinned by best practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. A systematic search was conducted to reinforce the literature selection process. The modified McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was undertaken.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine quantitative studies were included. Telehealth interventions were greatly varied in terms of types of healthcare services, implementation process and intervention parameters. Methodological concerns such as rigour in data collection and analysis, and psychometric properties of outcome measures were commonly identified. Process-related outcomes and telehealth outcomes were the two overarching categories identified.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides mixed evidence on the impact of, and outcomes from, telehealth in prisons. While the evidence base does highlight some positive impacts of telehealth, which at the least, is as effective as conventional care while achieving patient satisfaction, it is also important to consider the local context and drivers that may influence what, when and how telehealth services are provided. Addressing critical factors throughout the lifecycle of telehealth is equally important for successful implementation and sustainability.

Exercise Medicine in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to examine the health-related effects of exercise in patients with pancreatic cancer (PanCa) through a systematic review of current evidence. Studies were obtained through searching PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library databases with additional hand searches. All intervention-based studies were included if it involved (1) adult patients with PanCa, (2) exercise training, and (3) findings in quality of life, cancer-related fatigue, psychological distress, and physical function. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42020154684. Seven trials described in 9 publications were included consisting of 201 patients with early-stage and advanced PanCa. Participants were required to perform supervised and/or home-based, low- to moderate-intensity resistance and/or aerobic exercise for 12 to 35 weeks or duration of neoadjuvant therapy. There were no exercise-related adverse events with a reported retention rate of 71% to 90% and exercise attendance of 64% to 96%. The programs were consistently associated with improvements in cancer-related fatigue, psychological distress, and physical function, with mixed effects on quality of life. Exercise training seems to be safe and feasible and may have a beneficial effect on various physical and psychological outcomes in patients with PanCa. Further work with rigorous study designs is required to consolidate and advance current findings.