Health promotion for cancer survivors: adaptation and implementation of an intervention

Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer

BACKGROUND

People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Defining a patient-centered approach to cancer survivorship care: development of the patient centered survivorship care index (PC-SCI)

Purpose

This study presents the validation of an index that defines and measures a patient-centered approach to quality survivorship care.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of 1,278 survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers to identify their priorities for cancer survivorship care. We identified 42 items that were “very important or absolutely essential” to study participants. We then conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) to develop and validate the Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Index (PC-SCI).

Results

A seven-factor structure was identified based on EFA on a randomly split half sample and then validated by CFA based on the other half sample. The seven factors include: (1) information and support in survivorship (7 items), (2) having a medical home (10 items) (3) patient engagement in care (3 items), (4) care coordination (5 items), (5) insurance navigation (3 items), (6) care transitions from oncologist to primary care (3 items), and (7) prevention and wellness services (5 items). All factors have excellent composite reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha 0.84-0.94, Coefficient of Omega: 0.81-0.94).

Conclusions

Providing quality post-treatment care is critical for the long-term health and well-being of survivors. The PC-SCI defines a patient-centered approach to survivorship care to complement clinical practice guidelines. The PC-SCI has acceptable composite reliability, providing the field with a valid instrument of patient-centered survivorship care. The PC-SCI provides cancer centers with a means to guide, measure and monitor the development of their survivorship care to align with patient priorities of care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02362750, 13 February 2015

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07356-6.

Nursing intervention focusing on health promotion behaviors in adult cancer patients: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to map and provide an overview of literature concerning nursing strategies and intervention programs that promote healthy behaviors in cancer patients.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted using the methodological framework developed by Joanna Briggs Institute and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. Twelve databases were searched (2012-2019). Retrieved data included descriptive analyses exploring studies' methodological characteristics and results.

RESULTS

From 1589 studies, 12 were included. Most studies included patients on survivorship period (n=10) and selected intervention strategies focusing patient's knowledge and awareness (n=8). Educational sessions were supported by behavioral change reinforcements and motivational incentives. Only two of the considered studies analysed intervention cost effectiveness, but none disclosed intervention-related costs.

CONCLUSION

Nursing interventions are effective in promoting health behaviors when include health education and encouragement towards change. Survivorship is the perfect time for health promotion. Nurses can be considered health promoters, by encouraging health education and enhance survivor's motivation.

Identifying patients' priorities for quality survivorship: conceptualizing a patient-centered approach to survivorship care

PURPOSE

This study explored cancer survivors' experiences with and priorities for cancer survivorship care to describe a patient-centered approach to quality survivorship care.

METHODS

We conducted 22 focus groups with 170 adult survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer from six cities across the country and online. We used thematic analysis to identify participants' principles and priorities for quality survivorship care.

RESULTS

Based on our analysis of a limited group of cancer survivors, we identified two core principles that underlie participants' expectations for survivorship care and 11 practice priorities that reflect opportunities to improve patient-centeredness at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels. The principles reflect participants' desire to be better prepared for and equipped to accept and manage their chronic care needs post-cancer treatment. The priorities reflect practices that patients, providers, and cancer centers can engage in to ensure survivors' goals for post-treatment care are met.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the study suggest the need to expand conceptualization of high-quality survivorship care. The survivor principles and practice priorities identified in this study challenge the field to organize a more patient-centered survivorship care system that empowers and respects patients and provides a holistic approach to survivors' chronic and long-term needs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Quality cancer survivorship care must reflect patients' priorities. The findings from this study can be used to develop a patient-centered framework for survivorship care that can be used in conjunction with quality guidelines to ensure survivorship care is organized to achieve both clinical and patient-centered outcomes.

The Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions for Individuals with Low Health Literacy and/or Low Income: A Descriptive Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

With the burden of chronic illness increasing globally, self-management is a crucial strategy in reducing healthcare costs and increasing patient quality of life. Low income and low health literacy are both associated with poorer health outcomes and higher rates of chronic disease. Thus, self-management represents an important healthcare strategy for these populations. The purpose of this study is to review self-management interventions in populations with low income or low health literacy and synthesize the efficacy of these interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review of trials evaluating the efficacy of self-management interventions in populations with low income or low health literacy diagnosed with a chronic illness was conducted. Electronic databases were primarily searched to identify eligible studies. Data were extracted and efficacy summarized by self-management skills, outcomes, and content tailoring.

RESULTS

23 studies were reviewed, with ten reporting an overall positive effect on at least one primary outcome. Effective interventions most often included problem-solving as well as taking action and/or resource utilization. A wide range of health-related outcomes were considered, were efficacious empowerment and disease-specific quality of life were found to be significant. The efficacy of interventions did not seem to vary by duration, format, or mode of delivery or whether these included individuals with low health literacy and/or low income. Tailoring did not seem to impact on efficacy.

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest that self-management interventions in populations with low income or low health literacy are most effective when three to four self-management skills are utilized, particularly when problem-solving is targeted. Healthcare providers and researchers can use these findings to develop education strategies and tools for populations with low income or low health literacy to improve chronic illness self-management.

Enhancing Survivorship Care Planning for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Using a Couple-Focused mHealth Symptom Self-Management Program: Protocol for a Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

This project explores a new model of care that enhances survivorship care planning and promotes health for men with localized prostate cancer transitioning to posttreatment self-management. Survivorship care planning is important for patients with prostate cancer because of its high incidence rate in the United States, the frequent occurrence of treatment-related side effects, and reduced quality of life (QOL) for both men and their partners. A key component of comprehensive survivorship care planning is survivorship care plans (SCPs), documents that summarize cancer diagnosis, treatment, and plans for follow-up care. However, research concerning the effectiveness of SCPs on patient outcomes or health service use has thus far been inconclusive. SCPs that are tailored to individual patients' needs for information and care may improve effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the feasibility of an enhanced survivorship care plan (ESCP) that integrates a symptom self-management mHealth program called Prostate Cancer Education and Resources for Couples (PERC) into the existing standardized SCP. The specific aims are to (1) examine the feasibility of delivering ESCPs and (2) to estimate the magnitude of benefit of ESCPs.

METHODS

We will use a two-group randomized controlled pretest-posttest design and collect data at baseline (T1) and 4 months later (T2) among 50 patients completing initial treatment for localized prostate cancer and their partners. First, we will assess the feasibility of ESCP by recruitment, enrollment, and retention rates; program satisfaction with the ESCP; and perceived ease of use of the ESCP. To achieve the secondary aim, we will compare the ESCP users with the standardized SCP users and assess their primary outcomes of QOL (overall, physical, emotional, and social QOL); secondary outcomes (reduction in negative appraisals and improvement in self-efficacy, social support, and health behaviors to manage symptoms); and number of visits to posttreatment care services between T1 and T2. We will assess the primary and secondary outcomes using measurements with sound psychometrical properties. We will use a qualitative and quantitative mixed methods approach to achieve the research aims.

RESULTS

This project is ongoing and will be completed by the end of 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study will help design a definitive randomized trial to test the efficacy of the ESCPs, a potentially scalable program, to enhance supportive care for prostate cancer patients and their families.

Interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than healthy people. Therefore it is important to provide cancer patients with programmes to support the return-to-work (RTW) process. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at enhancing RTW in cancer patients compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (January 1947 to March 2014), CINAHL (January 1983 to March, 2014), OSH-ROM and OSH Update (January 1960 to March, 2014), PsycINFO (January 1806 to 25 March 2014), DARE (January 1995 to March, 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov, Trialregister.nl and Controlled-trials.com up to 25 March 2014. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical, medical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in cancer patients. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled study results we judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs including 1835 cancer patients met the inclusion criteria and because of multiple arms studies we included 19 evaluations. We judged six studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. All included studies were conducted in high income countries and most studies were aimed at breast cancer patients (seven trials) or prostate cancer patients (two trials).Two studies involved psycho-educational interventions including patient education and teaching self-care behaviours. Results indicated low quality evidence of similar RTW rates for psycho-educational interventions compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35, n = 260 patients) and low quality evidence that there is no difference in the effect of psycho-educational interventions compared to care as usual on quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.05, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3, n = 260 patients). We did not find any studies on vocational interventions. In one study breast cancer patients were offered a physical training programme. Low quality evidence suggested that physical training was not more effective than care as usual in improving RTW (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.54, n = 28 patients) or quality of life (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.25, n = 41 patients).Seven RCTs assessed the effects of a medical intervention on RTW. In all studies a less radical or functioning conserving medical intervention was compared with a more radical treatment. We found low quality evidence that less radical, functioning conserving approaches had similar RTW rates as more radical treatments (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09, n = 1097 patients) and moderate quality evidence of no differences in quality of life outcomes (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.23, n = 1028 patients).Five RCTs involved multidisciplinary interventions in which vocational counselling was combined with patient education, patient counselling, and biofeedback-assisted behavioral training or physical exercises. Moderate quality evidence showed that multidisciplinary interventions involving physical, psycho-educational and vocational components led to higher RTW rates than care as usual (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16, n = 450 patients). We found no differences in the effect of multidisciplinary interventions compared to care as usual on quality of life outcomes (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.25, n = 316 patients).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary interventions enhance the RTW of patients with cancer.