1
|
Booth ME, Clements HA, Helbrow J, Baxter MA, Bleaney CW, Hawkins MA, Markar SR, Peters CJ, Smyth EC, Crosby TDL. United Kingdom and Ireland Oesophagogastric Cancer Group Cancer Update 2023. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2024; 36:e283-e291. [PMID: 38876807 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 04/29/2024] [Indexed: 06/16/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- M E Booth
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - H A Clements
- Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
| | - J Helbrow
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - M A Baxter
- Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - C W Bleaney
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - M A Hawkins
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, UK
| | - S R Markar
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
| | - C J Peters
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK
| | - E C Smyth
- Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Corish S, Fulton BA, Galbraith L, Coltart K, Duffton A. Impact of patient information format on the experience of cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 2024; 30:100252. [PMID: 38779037 PMCID: PMC11109017 DOI: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2023] [Revised: 04/23/2024] [Accepted: 05/01/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Radiotherapy (RT) stands as one of the main cancer treatments. The impact of RT and cancer treatment can have a physical and psychological impact on patients and their carers. To gain patient's trust, and ensure they feel valued, information should be provided before, during, and after RT. Patient and public involvement (PPI) has been lacking, and increased engagement with PPI groups could improve this. This rapid review aims to analyse the literature, and describe and report patient perception, experience, and satisfaction regarding the information received concerning their course of RT. Methods To allow the synthesis of results, a pragmatic decision was made to use a rapid review approach to analyse the literature, providing more timely information to inform future work. This rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023415916).Electronic databases CINAHL, AMED, Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched using a comprehensive search for published studies from January 2012 to November 2023. Two independent reviewers applied the eligibility criteria. Evidence from literature was extracted and transcribed into qualitative data and Braun and Clarke's six-step thematic analysis (TA) was employed to determine themes by one reviewer and checked by a second [26]. Due to the heterogeneity of the included literature, the analysis of this review is presented primarily through narrative synthesis. Results Sixty eight articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Emerging themes included; a desire for information based on patient characteristics, information format, patient preparedness, timing e.g. timing of information and changing priorities over time, health care professional (HCP) involvement, barriers to information, and motivators for better information delivery. Conclusions Several factors can influence a patient's desire for information, from whom and when they receive it, to what format they would prefer to receive it. There is benefit to be gained in employing PPI and patient advocacy to inform future studies that aim to further understand the themes that emerged from this review. Such studies can therefore inform HCPs in providing patient-specific information and support by utilising multiple teaching strategies available to them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ben A Fulton
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK
| | | | | | - Aileen Duffton
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK
- Institute of Cancer Science, University of Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Shakhnenko I, Husson O, Chuter D, van der Graaf W. Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature. ESMO Open 2024; 9:102947. [PMID: 38492274 PMCID: PMC10959641 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102947] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2023] [Revised: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Shakhnenko
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC Headquarters), Brussels, Belgium
| | - O Husson
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam; Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D Chuter
- EORTC, Patient Panel, Brussels, Belgium; Digestive Cancers Europe (DiCE), UK
| | - W van der Graaf
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Farah E, Kenney M, Kica A, Haddad P, Stewart DJ, Bradford JP. Beyond Participation: Evaluating the Role of Patients in Designing Oncology Clinical Trials. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:8310-8327. [PMID: 37754518 PMCID: PMC10527717 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30090603] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 09/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Historically, subject matter experts and healthcare professionals have played a pivotal role in driving oncology clinical trials. Although patients have been key participants, their deliberate and active contribution to the design and decision-making process has been limited. This scoping review aimed to examine the existing literature to scope the extent of active patient engagement in the design of oncology clinical trials and its corresponding influence on trial outcomes. We conducted a systematic search using two databases, namely MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE, to identify relevant studies exploring patient engagement in cancer-related clinical research design. We identified seven studies that met the eligibility criteria. The studies highlighted the benefits of active patient involvement, such as improved recruitment strategies, and the attainment of more patient-centered trial outcomes. The influence of patient involvement varied from tangible developments like patient-friendly resources to indirect impacts like improved patient experiences and potentially higher adherence to trial intervention. The future of clinical trials should prioritize patients' values and perspectives, with regulatory bodies fostering these practices through clear guidelines. As the concept of patient centricity takes root in oncology research, the involvement of patients should evolve beyond mere participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eliya Farah
- Life-Saving Therapies Network, 173 Heath Street, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Matthew Kenney
- Life-Saving Therapies Network, 173 Heath Street, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Anris Kica
- Life-Saving Therapies Network, 173 Heath Street, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Paul Haddad
- Life-Saving Therapies Network, 173 Heath Street, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - David J. Stewart
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Rd., Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada;
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Colomer‐Lahiguera S, Steimer M, Ellis U, Eicher M, Tompson M, Corbière T, Haase KR. Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review. Cancer Med 2023; 12:15530-15543. [PMID: 37329180 PMCID: PMC10417078 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2023] [Revised: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format. RESULTS We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI. CONCLUSIONS Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Colomer‐Lahiguera
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland
| | - Matthieu Steimer
- Master of Advanced Studies in Public Health studentInstitute of Global Health, Geneva UniversityGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Ursula Ellis
- Woodward LibraryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
| | - Manuela Eicher
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland
| | | | - Tourane Corbière
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Fiddimore E, Harrop E, Nelson A, Sivell S. "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. J Psychosoc Oncol 2022; 41:434-456. [PMID: 37155324 DOI: 10.1080/07347332.2022.2136997] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Fiddimore
- iBSc in Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Emily Harrop
- Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Annmarie Nelson
- Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Stephanie Sivell
- Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|