Teaching Patients with Advanced Cancer to Self-Advocate: Development and Acceptability of the Strong Together™ Serious Game

Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

METHODS

A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

RESULTS

A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

Gamification as an Educational Approach for Oncological Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Education plays a pivotal role in the care of oncological patients, reducing health costs, hospital readmission, and disease relapses. Education can be supportive in achieving multiple outcomes, improving symptom control and quality of life. A new approach is emerging in patient education: gamification. Gamification was defined as the "use of game elements in non-game contexts", including the application of games in serious contexts. The aim of this review is to explore the use of gamification in the oncology setting.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases using the JBI guidelines.

RESULTS

The 13 included reports were critically appraised by two reviewers independently. It seems that gamification could be effective both in prevention and cancer treatments. Gamification also seems to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management, quality of life, and reduced anxiety levels in different cancer groups. Moreover, gamification seems effective in improving self-care in cancer patients, regardless of gender, age, and ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Gamification improves patient engagement and biopsychosocial outcomes and could represent a valid approach to cancer patient education; however, it is not a substitute for healthcare professionals, who remain the leaders in the education process.

The feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-advocacy serious game for women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinicians and systems aim to provide patient-centered care, but not all patients have the self-advocacy skills necessary to ensure their care reflects their needs and priorities. This study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-advocacy serious game (an educational video game) intervention in women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

Women with recently diagnosed (<3 months) metastatic breast or advanced gynecologic cancer were randomized 2:1 to receive a tablet-based serious game (Strong Together) (n = 52) or enhanced care as usual (n = 26). Feasibility was based on recruitment, retention, data completion, and intervention engagement. Acceptability was assessed via a postintervention questionnaire and exit interview. Preliminary efficacy was assessed on the basis of change scores from baseline to 3 and 6 months in self-advocacy (Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship Scale) using intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight women (55.1% with breast cancer; 44.9% with gynecologic cancer) were enrolled. Feasibility was demonstrated by satisfactory recruitment (69% approach-to-consent rate; 93% enroll-to-randomize rate), retention (90% and 86% at 3 and 6 months, respectively; 85% data completion), and intervention engagement (84% completed ≥75% of the game). Participants endorsed the intervention's (75%) and trial's (87%) acceptability. Participants in the intervention group experienced significant improvements in self-advocacy at 3 and 6 months compared to participants in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong Together is feasible and acceptable among women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancer. This intervention demonstrates promising evidence of clinical efficacy. A future confirmatory trial is warranted to test the efficacy of the intervention for patient and health system outcomes.

What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature

Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on 'best practices' for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP-April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill 'best practices'. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize 'best practices' that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six 'best practices' were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified 'best practices' are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care.

Who Engages and Why It Matters?

While the use and benefits of serious games in health care are increasingly recognized, the impact of individuals' game engagement remains understudied, limiting the potential for impact. This pilot study aims to describe game engagement and its associations with learning outcomes, sociodemographics, and health factors in women with advanced cancer receiving a 12-week self-advocacy serious game intervention. Game engagement was collected from study tablets and weekly self-reported surveys. Participants' game engagement was overall high but with large amounts of variation and did not differ by their sociodemographics and health factors. Participants with lower baseline symptom severity were more likely to repeat game scenarios, and those who engaged in all scenarios had higher connected strength post-intervention. Knowing what prevents patients with advanced cancer from engaging in the serious game enlightens ways to refine the gamified interventions. Future research is suggested to evaluate patients' engagement to deepen understanding of its impacts on learning outcomes.

"I was never one of those people who just jumped right in for me": patient perspectives on self-advocacy training for women with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer experience many complicated situations that can make self-advocacy (defined as the ability speak up for yourself in the face of a challenge) difficult. Few self-advocacy interventions exist, and most are atheoretical with minimal patient engagement. The purpose of this study is to describe participant perspectives of a novel, self-advocacy serious game intervention called Strong Together.

METHODS

This was a qualitative cross-sectional descriptive study among women receiving cancer care at an academic cancer center within 3 months of an advanced gynecologic or breast cancer diagnosis. Participants randomized to receive the intervention completed one-on-one semi-structured interviews 3-months post Strong Together and had the option to share voice journals about their experiences. Inductive qualitative approaches were used to descriptively analyze transcripts and voice journals. Descriptive content analysis approaches were used to group similar codes together into themes summarizing participants' experiences engaging with the Strong Together intervention.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 40) reported that the Strong Together intervention was acceptable, noting that it was realistic and reflective of their personal experiences. Overarching themes included seeing myself in most scenarios and wanting more content; giving me the go ahead to expect more; offering ideas for how to stand up for myself; reinforcing what I am already doing; and reminding me of what I have. Participants suggested adding additional content including diverse characters.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that women with advanced cancer were receptive to a self-advocacy skills-building intervention. Future research should explore the mechanisms linking serious games to learning and health outcomes.

Testing the effects of the Strong Together self-advocacy serious game among women with advanced cancer: Protocol for the STRONG randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Women with advanced cancer experience significant barriers to achieving high-quality care and maximizing their physical and emotional health. Our novel serious game, Strong Together, aims to teach women with advanced cancer self-advocacy skills needed to improve their symptom burden, quality of life, and patient-centered care.

METHODS

This is a single-center, multi-site randomized clinical trial of the Strong Together intervention among 336 women within three months of an advanced breast or gynecologic cancer diagnosis. Randomization occurs to the 3-month Strong Together serious game or enhanced care as usual group. The aims are to: (1) evaluate the effects of the intervention on patient self-advocacy (primary outcome); (2) evaluate the effects of the intervention on quality of life, symptom burden, and patient-centered care (secondary outcomes); and (3) evaluate the behavioral and game mechanisms that influence the efficacy of the intervention.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

female, age ≥ 18 years; diagnosis of advanced breast or gynecologic cancer within the past 3 months; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-2; English literacy; and ≥ 6-month life expectancy. Patient-reported outcome measures are collected at baseline, 3-months, and 6-months.

CONCLUSION

This protocol is the first large-scale intervention aimed at promoting self-advocacy in women with advanced cancer. Understanding the ability of serious games to impact patient outcomes provides critical information for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders aiming to improve patient-centered care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04813276.