Determining research priorities for adolescent and young adult cancer in Australia

Exploring Web-Based Information and Resources That Support Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer to Resume Study and Work: Environmental Scan Study

BACKGROUND

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer experience physical, cognitive, and psychosocial effects from cancer treatment that can negatively affect their ability to remain engaged in education or work through cancer treatment and in the long term. Disengagement from education or work can have lasting implications for AYAs' financial independence, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life. Australian AYAs with cancer lack access to adequate specialist support for their education and work needs and report a preference for web-based support that they can access from anywhere, in their own time. However, it remains unclear what web-based resources exist that are tailored to support AYAs with cancer in reaching their educational or work goals.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine what web-based resources exist for Australian AYAs with cancer to (1) support return to education or work and (2) identify the degree to which existing resources are age-specific, cancer-specific, culturally inclusive, and evidence-based; are co-designed with AYAs; use age-appropriate language; and are easy to find.

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan by searching Google with English search terms in August 2022 to identify information resources about employment and education for AYAs ever diagnosed with cancer. Data extraction was conducted in Microsoft Excel, and the following were assessed: understandability and actionability (using the Patient Education and Materials Tool), readability (using the Sydney Health Literacy Laboratory Health Literacy Editor), and whether the resource was easy to locate, evidence-based, co-designed with AYAs, and culturally inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The latter was assessed using 7 criteria previously developed by members of the research team.

RESULTS

We identified 24 web-based resources, comprising 22 written text resources and 12 video resources. Most resources (21/24, 88%) were published by nongovernmental organizations in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. A total of 7 resources focused on education, 8 focused on work, and 9 focused on both education and work. The evaluation of resources demonstrated poor understandability and actionability. Resources were rarely evidence-based or co-designed by AYAs, difficult to locate on the internet, and largely not inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although web-based resources for AYAs with cancer are often available through the websites of hospitals or nongovernmental organizations, this environmental scan suggests they would benefit from more evidence-based and actionable resources that are available in multiple formats (eg, text and audio-visual) and tailored to be age-appropriate and culturally inclusive.

Identifying research priorities with children, youth, and families: A scoping review

Increased patient advocacy has resulted in a shift toward more active patient engagement in the research. A scoping review was conducted to explore the literature on healthcare research priority settings wherein children, youths, or their families were involved in the priority-setting process. Six databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health and the James Lind Alliance website were searched up until September 2019. All primary studies involving children (<18 years of age) or families in developing research priorities in health care were included. All retrieved references were uploaded into Covidence, and two independent reviewers screened the search results. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. A total of 30 studies with 4247 participants were included. Less than half of the participants (n = 1237, (33%) were pediatric patients and their families. A total of 455 research priorities were identified. Three common themes emerged: (i) quality of care delivery, (ii) self-efficacy in health behaviors, and (iii) community engagement in care. This scoping review revealed priority research health topics from the perspectives of children, youths, or their families. The findings may be used as a foundation for future research to improve the health outcomes of children, youths, or their families according to their identified priorities.

"We Have All This Knowledge to Give, So Use Us as a Resource": Partnering with Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors to Determine Consumer-Led Research Priorities

Purpose: Involvement of adolescent and young adult (AYAs) cancer survivors as consumers in research is increasingly encouraged, yet few studies have identified the feasibility and acceptability of methods used to involve them. We aimed to identify: (1) How feasible and acceptable is a consumer-driven, workshop-based research priority-setting approach? And (2) what research priorities do Australian AYA consumers endorse? Methods: AYA cancer survivors diagnosed 15-30 years old and currently younger than 35 years were invited to participate. The AYAs completed a pre-workshop survey to rank their top three priorities from the United Kingdom-based James Lind Alliance list, participated in a 90-minute focus group, and completed a post-workshop evaluation survey. We assessed the workshop feasibility by reviewing considerations, challenges, and enablers of success in the planning and conduct processes. Acceptability was assessed through participants' evaluation surveys and facilitators' informal reflections. The top three priorities were determined from pre-workshop surveys and focus group data. Results: Six survivors participated (M age = 24.2 years, M = 5 years post-treatment, 83% female). All reported that the workshop was an acceptable way to engage with researchers. Costs and recruitment challenges limited the workshop's feasibility. The AYAs' top priority was: What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning, and mental health during and after treatment? Discussion: The AYA survivors found our workshop to be an acceptable way to engage in research priority-setting. However, the feasibility of this approach depends on the resources available to researchers. Future research is needed to define the optimal method of engagement: What is most acceptable for AYAs and feasible for researchers?

Online, Group-Based Psychological Support for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors: Results from the Recapture Life Randomized Trial

Telehealth interventions offer a practical platform to support adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors' mental health needs after treatment, yet efficacy data are lacking. We evaluated an online, group-based, videoconferencing-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention ('Recapture Life') in a 3-arm randomized-controlled trial comparing Recapture Life with an online peer-support group, and a waitlist control, with the aim of testing its impact on quality of life, emotional distress and healthcare service use. Forty AYAs (Mage = 20.6 years) within 24-months of completing treatment participated, together with 18 support persons. No groupwise impacts were measured immediately after the six-week intervention. However, Recapture Life participants reported using more CBT skills at the six-week follow-up (OR = 5.58, 95% CI = 2.00-15.56, p = 0.001) than peer-support controls. Recapture Life participants reported higher perceived negative impact of cancer, anxiety and depression at 12-month follow-up, compared to peer-support controls. Post-hoc analyses suggested that AYAs who were further from completing cancer treatment responded better to Recapture Life than those who had completed treatment more recently. While online telehealth interventions hold promise, recruitment to this trial was challenging. As the psychological challenges of cancer survivorship are likely to evolve with time, different support models may prove more or less helpful for different sub-groups of AYA survivors at different times.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Psychosocial Outcomes of a Mindfulness-Based Interactive e-Book for Young People with Cancer

Purpose: Receiving a cancer diagnosis for young people is likely to adversely impact the individual's quality of life. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are an emerging strategy used to improve psychosocial well-being. However, challenges have been reported in relation to adherence and accessibility of face-to-face mindfulness programs among young people. This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a mindfulness-based interactive e-Book to improve psychosocial well-being of young people with cancer. Methods: Concurrent mixed methods approach with a pre-intervention-post-intervention survey and semistructured interviews evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a MBI delivered over a 6-week period, and its effect on psychosocial well-being of young people with cancer 15 to 24 years of age. Results: Of the 31 young people, both survivors and on active treatment, enrolled in the study, 20 (64.5%) completed the post-intervention survey. Textual data and interviews (n = 3) revealed that young people enjoyed the intervention and found it useful and easy to navigate, but wanted more attention paid to cancer-specific stressors, as well as opportunities for face-to-face or online interactions. Psychosocial well-being measures demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in depressive symptoms (2.35 to 1.25, p = 0.03) and psychological distress (23.63 to 19.79, p = 0.03), along with nonsignificant increases in mindfulness (20.05 to 22.9, p = 0.08) and quality of life (62.0 to 69.1, p = 0.13). Conclusion: Young people found the self-help MBI, delivered in an interactive e-Book platform, useful and acceptable. There were psychosocial benefits, although recruitment and retention were study challenges and can be improved in future research.

A scoping review of literature: What has been studied about adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer?

PURPOSE

To map, organize and analyze the articles published in the last five years about AYAs with cancer.

METHODS

CAPES database and Google Scholar were searched to identify relevant studies from 2015 to February 2020. Eligible articles included empirical or theoretical research, quantitative and/or qualitative studies, targeted AYAs with cancer, addressed different topics related to AYAs such as unmet needs, hospital challenges, interventions or tools based on evidence, as well as political and socioeconomic aspects.

RESULTS

Of the 161 articles analyzed, 74 (46%) discussed the health system, including hospital dynamics, treatment and interventions during treatment; 63 (39.1%) discussed aspects or interventions that influence the quality of life and mental health of AYAs with cancer; 14 (8.7%) discussed issues related to sexual health; and 10 (6.2%) addressed social, economic and demographic problems of AYAs with cancer. Three types of purposes have been identified in the articles: 118 (73.3%) investigated variables in areas related to AYAs with cancer, aiming to increase the understanding of the phenomenon and the needs of AYAs; 18 (11.2%) intervened on the needs of AYAs with cancer through pilot studies or evidence-based interventions; and 22 (13.7%) aimed to evaluate an intervention previously performed or to evaluate an intervention based on evidence.

CONCLUSION

There is still much to be researched within the last two categories. In the last three years, these categories have been growing gradually and on a small scale.

Nursing research priorities based on CINAHL database: A scoping review

Aim

To analyse nursing research based on the CINAHL database to identify research priorities for nursing.

Design

A scoping literature review was conducted. The CINAHL Plus (EBSCO) Full Text was searched between 2012-2018.

Methods

Out of 1522 original publications, 91 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were applied. Data were analysed by a thematic analysis method.

Results

A strong emphasis should be put on development and evaluation of nursing theories and, in addition, randomized controlled trial studies, meta-synthesis, experimental and intervention studies are needed in nursing research. Development of competencies and skills in the nursing profession ought to be studied more extensively and research should be focused on variety fields of nursing practice.

Understanding and Improving Survivorship Care for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer

Purpose: To explore and highlight the opportunities and challenges that underlie the development of survivorship care for adolescent and young adult cancer. Methods: A multimethod approach was used, with perspectives of survivors, relatives, and health care professionals elicited through an online survey, focus group, and semistructured interviews. Results: Four themes were identified using thematic analysis: adjusting to life after cancer, transition to community-based care, ongoing change and reform of health care, and supporting survivorship services. Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and their families struggled with the transition from active treatment, which was complicated by ongoing disease/treatment impacts and a collective dearth of knowledge and resources on how to support AYAs during this time. Limited confidence and communication in patient-general practitioner relationships complicated the transition to community-based care, with treatment summaries and survivorship care plans an underused resource. A growing movement toward integrated, holistic, and equitable survivorship care was identified, but progress has been fragmented and under-resourced. Further research, funding, and advocacy are needed to support ongoing survivorship initiatives. Conclusions: Although some survivorship concerns are common across age groups, others are specific to AYAs' developmental stage, emphasizing the need for integrated, age-appropriate, and targeted survivorship services for AYAs. The transition from active treatment to longer term survivorship presents challenges for ongoing clinical care and support; change is needed at individual, service, and system levels to provide quality, sustainable, and integrated care to AYA cancer survivors.

Research prioritisation exercises related to the care of children and young people with life-limiting conditions, their parents and all those who care for them: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

In planning high-quality research in any aspect of care for children and young people with life-limiting conditions, it is important to prioritise resources in the most appropriate areas.

AIM

To map research priorities identified from existing research prioritisation exercises relevant to infants, children and young people with life-limiting conditions, in order to inform future research.

DESIGN

We undertook a systematic scoping review to identify existing research prioritisation exercises; the protocol is publicly available on the project website.

DATA SOURCES

The bibliographic databases ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE/MEDLINE In Process and Embase were searched from 2000. Relevant reference lists and websites were hand searched. Included were any consultations aimed at identifying research for the benefit of neonates, infants, children and/or young people (birth to age 25 years) with life-limiting, life-threatening or life-shortening conditions; their family, parents, carers; and/or the professional staff caring for them.

RESULTS

A total of 24 research prioritisation exercises met the inclusion criteria, from which 279 research questions or priority areas for health research were identified. The priorities were iteratively mapped onto an evolving framework, informed by World Health Organization classifications. This resulted in identification of 16 topic areas, 55 sub-topics and 12 sub-sub-topics.

CONCLUSION

There are numerous similar and overlapping research prioritisation exercises related to children and young people with life-limiting conditions. By mapping existing research priorities in the context in which they were set, we highlight areas to focus research efforts on. Further priority setting is not required at this time unless devoted to ascertaining families' perspectives.

Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas.

RESULTS

We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations.

CONCLUSIONS

Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease.

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

Background

Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify ‘high-level’ priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.

Data sources

HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar’s Portal.

Study eligibility criteria

i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007—Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.

Study appraisal and synthesis

i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.

Results

Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1—Deliberative and Tier 2—Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).

Limitations

The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.

Conclusion

The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.