Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

The Emotional Impact of a Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study of Adolescent and Young Adult Experience

The biographical disruption that occurs in adolescents and young adults following a cancer diagnosis can affect various important psychosocial domains including relationships with family and friends, sexual development, vocational and educational trajectories, and physical and emotional wellbeing. While there is evidence of the physical impact of cancer during this period, less is known about the impact on emotional wellbeing and especially on the barriers for young people accessing help and support. We aimed to obtain a more in-depth understanding of young people's experiences of their diagnosis, treatment, psychological impact, and range of resources they could or wanted to access for their mental health. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 43 young people who had developed cancer aged 16 to 39 years and were either within 6 months of diagnosis or 3-5 years after treatment had ended. Framework analysis identified three themes: the emotional impact of cancer (expressed through anxiety, anger, and fear of recurrence); personal barriers to support through avoidance; and support to improve mental health through mental health services or adolescent and young adult treatment teams. We showed the barriers young people have to access care, particularly participant avoidance of support. Interrupting this process to better support young people and provide them with flexible, adaptable, consistent, long-term psychological support has the potential to improve their quality of life and wellbeing.

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

DESIGN

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

SETTING

UK health service and community.

METHODS

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?'

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Have we made progress in taking care of adolescents and young adults with cancer? Results of a European multi-professional survey

BACKGROUND

It is well documented that traditional health care models do not meet the specific needs of Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) cancer patients.

METHODS

We explore a map of the development of age-specific AYA cancer care across Europe, from the perspective of healthcare professionals with an interest in AYA care, in order to understand the specific challenges and map progress over time. An on-line survey was developed by international professional cancer organisations.

RESULTS

We had 377 respondents from 60 countries. The majority of respondents were physicians 298 (79%), a minority of survey respondents (39, 10.4%) work exclusively with AYA patients, most respondents declared substantial and routine clinical service collaborations to provide care and treatment to AYA with cancer. Policy for the multidisciplinary management of AYA cancer patients commonly appears in Europe now, and was reported by 234 (78.52%) respondents. Specific professional training for AYA cancer care is not uniformly available.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable opportunity for many organisations to work together in raising the profile of AYA cancer related issues, in providing education and in encouraging research and collaboration.

What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

Previous priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises.

METHODS

We followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities.

RESULTS

Sixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.

Young people's opinions of cancer care in England: the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort

OBJECTIVES

The BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study was the national evaluation of cancer services for teenager and young adults (TYA). This was analysis of free-text survey data to better understand their experiences of cancer care.

DESIGN

Cohort study SETTING: National Health Service hospitals delivering cancer care in England PARTICIPANTS: 830 young people newly diagnosed with cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Exposure to specialist care in the first 6 months after diagnosis defined as care in a TYA Principal Treatment Centre (PTC). This was categorised as follows: all care in a TYA-PTC (ALL-TYA-PTC), no care in a TYA-PTC (NO-TYA-PTC) so care delivered in a children/adult unit only and some care in a TYA-PTC with additional care in a children's/adult unit (SOME-TYA-PTC).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Data were collected through the BRIGHTLIGHT survey included free-text questions which asked patients 'what was the best aspects of their experiences of care' and 'what aspects could be improved'. These comments were analysed using content analysis. Themes were compared between categories of care, then ranked in order of frequency, ranging from the most endorsed to the least.

RESULTS

Overall, young people were most positive about their healthcare team, while the area highlighted for improvement was diagnostic experience. Differences between the three groups suggested those who had some or all treatment in a TYA-PTC valued the place of care. Regardless of where TYA were treated their healthcare teams were favourably viewed. Age appropriate place of care was highlighted to be of value for those in PTCs.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show the value young people placed on the care they received in TYA specific wards. Young people who accessed some or all of their care in a TYA-PTC highly endorsed their place of care as one of the best elements of their care, and it is further emphasised by those who had shared care who experienced difficulty with lack of age-appropriate care when treated outside the TYA-PTC.

Setting a Patient-Driven Agenda for Cancer Research Priorities in Geriatric Oncology: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore older adults' perceptions of priorities for research in cancer and hematological malignancies and proposes an agenda of patient-driven priorities for cancer care research in the field of geriatric oncology.

DATA SOURCES

Sixteen older adults (≥65 years) living with or after a diagnosis of cancer participated in a descriptive qualitative study. Participants were purposively recruited via a regional cancer center and cancer advocacy organizations. Semistructured telephone interviews explored participants' experiences of cancer and perceptions of priorities for future cancer-related research.

CONCLUSION

Participants reported positive experiences of cancer care. However, positive and negative experiences of information, symptoms, and support both within and beyond the hospital setting were highlighted. Forty-two research priorities in six thematic areas were identified: 1) recognition of the signs and symptoms of cancer; 2) research about cancer treatment; 3) assessment and management of comorbidities; 4) unmet needs of older adults living with and after cancer; 5) impact of COVID-19; and 6) impact on caregivers and family members of people living with and after cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The results of this study provide a basis for future priority-setting activities that are culturally and contextually sensitive to health care systems, resources, and needs of older adults living with and after cancer. Based on the findings of this study, we make recommendations for the development of interventions that can build awareness, capacity, and competence in geriatric oncology among cancer care professionals and consideration of the diverse needs of older adults in the development of interventions to address unmet information and supportive care needs.

How should multiple myeloma research change in a patient-oriented world? Findings and lessons from the pan-Canadian myeloma priority setting partnership

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade there has been considerable research into the treatment, management, and quality of life of people living with multiple myeloma. However, there has been limited investigation into topics deemed important to patients and caregivers within this community. We conducted a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to establish the 'Top 10 Priorities for Myeloma Research', informed by patient and public partners.

METHODS

A research team and steering group were established in 2019 to conduct the myeloma priority setting partnership. Steering group members included patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers who advised the research team and oversaw the scope of the project, grounded on their lived experience. Following the James Lind Alliance guidelines for identification and ranking of research questions, we used surveys and a virtual workshop to collect and prioritize questions posed by myeloma patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers across Canada.

RESULTS

The Top 10 list of priorities for myeloma research was finalized at the consensus-building workshop and encompassed questions related to diagnosis, treatment, management, and living well with myeloma. A final participant evaluation survey elicited a positive response.

INTERPRETATION

The myeloma priority setting partnership identified the research priorities of people living with myeloma, caregivers, and healthcare providers to inform clinical research on this disease going forward. This project underscores the importance of patient and public engagement in the identification of research questions, highlighting the concerns of people affected by myeloma to ultimately improve the lives of people living with this disease.

Hospital healthcare experiences of children and young people with life-threatening or life-shortening conditions, and their parents: scoping reviews and resultant conceptual frameworks

BACKGROUND

Patient experience is a core component of healthcare quality. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are increasingly used to assess this, but there are few paediatric PREMs. This paper reports the first stage of developing two such measures, one for children and young people (0-18 years) (CYP) with a life-threatening or life-shortening condition (LT/LSC), and one for their parents. It comprised parallel scoping reviews of qualitative evidence on the elements of health service delivery and care that matter to, or impact on, CYP (Review 1) and parents (Review 2).

METHODS

Medline and PsychINFO (1/1/2010 - 11/8/2020) and CINAHL Complete (1/1/2010 - 4/7/2020) were searched and records identified screened against inclusion criteria. A thematic approach was used to manage and analyse relevant data, informed by existing understandings of patient/family experiences as comprising aspects of staff's attributes, their actions and behaviours, and organisational features. The objective was to identity the data discrete elements of health service delivery and care which matter to, or impact on, CYP or parents which, when organised under higher order conceptual domains, created separate conceptual frameworks.

RESULTS

18,531 records were identified. Sparsity of data on community-based services meant the reviews focused only on hospital-based (inpatient and outpatient) experiences. 53 studies were included in Review 1 and 64 in Review 2. For Review 1 (CYP), 36 discrete elements of healthcare experience were identified and organized under 8 higher order domains (e.g. staff's empathetic qualities; information-sharing/decision making; resources for socializing/play). In Review 2 (parents), 55 elements were identified and organized under 9 higher order domains. Some domains were similar to those identified in Review 1 (e.g. professionalism; information-sharing/decision-making), others were unique (e.g. supporting parenting; access to additional support).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple and wide-ranging aspects of the way hospital healthcare is organized and delivered matters to and impacts on CYP with LT/LSCs, and their parents. The aspects that matter differ between CYP and parents, highlighting the importance of measuring and understanding CYP and parent experience seperately. These findings are key to the development of patient/parent experience measures for this patient population and the resultant conceptual frameworks have potential application in service development.

Determining Research Priorities With Teen and Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study

Background

Children with congenital heart disease (CHD) are living longer than ever before. This growing cohort of adults with CHD has high medical and psychosocial needs. Also, patients and advocacy groups are justifiably demanding that their voices be heard in all phases of clinical and health services research.

Methods

We conducted a first of its kind research priority-setting exercise with teens and adults with moderate-to-complex CHD. Focus groups were held using a fixed, mixed methods, exploratory sequential design. Objectives were to include the patient voice in all phases of the research process, determine the key needs of patients living with CHD, to guide health services research, and identify the "top 10" research priorities of teens and adults living with CHD.

Results

Thirty-five patients participated in one of nine 3-hour focus groups where they shared their experiences living with CHD. They expressed a desire for connection with others living with CHD and altruistic motives for participating. Patients with CHD identified a need for information about their disease and prognosis, a need for connection through physical activity and mentorship programmes, and a need for advanced communication with health care teams. Qualitative results correlated well with quantitative ratings to create a patient-derived "top 10" research priorities list.

Conclusions

Patients affected by a chronic disease like CHD want to be included in all phases of research. Our research priority-setting exercise in teens and adults with CHD has created a roadmap for clinicians and researchers to investigate issues most important to those living with CHD.

Effects of physical activity interventions on physical activity and health outcomes in young people during treatment for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

Physical activity may improve health and reduce the adverse effects of cancer and/or its treatment in young people, therefore, interventions that promote physical activity are important. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed the effectiveness of physical activity interventions on health outcomes in young people undergoing cancer treatment.

Design

Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Data sources

Embase, PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, PsychArticles, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs, recruited young patients with cancer receiving cancer treatment and tested an aerobic physical activity intervention. Title/abstract reports were screened against the review eligibility criteria.

Results

Searches revealed seven eligible trials that had recruited 317 participants. No differences were found in minutes per day of participation in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MD 2.61, 95% CI -3.67 to 8.89, p=0.42), total physical activity (standardised mean difference, SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.09, p=0.35) or fatigue (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.02, p=0.06). Sensitivity analyses where trials with a high risk of bias were excluded, revealed significant effects for total physical activity (SMD 0.87, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.57, p=0.02) and fatigue (SMD 0.74, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.35), p=0.0002).

Conclusion

Evidence regarding the effects of physical activity interventions on the health of young people undergoing treatment for cancer is limited and mixed, where results from high-quality trials showed some promise.

Using Evidence-Based Medicine to Support Clinical Decision-Making in RMS

The foundations of evidence-based practice are the triad of patient values and preferences, healthcare professional experience, and best available evidence, used together to inform clinical decision-making. Within the field of rhabdomyosarcoma, collaborative groups such as the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group (EpSSG) have worked to develop evidence to support this process. We have explored many of the key research developments within this review, including patient and public involvement, decision-making research, research into areas other than drug development, core outcome sets, reporting and dissemination of research, evidence synthesis, guideline development and clinical decision rules, research of research methodologies, and supporting research in RMS.

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders.

METHODS

A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

A survey and stakeholder group prioritised key systematic review questions in airways disease

Objective

Priority setting is important for healthcare research. The Cochrane Airways Group wanted to prioritise topics for systematic reviews across all chronic respiratory diseases with limited resources and according to latest Cochrane policy.The objective was to prioritise 10 reviews of importance to the public (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers) from a patient survey.

Study design and setting

We convened a stakeholder group of patients, carers, healthcare professionals and representatives from charities. We conducted an online survey to collect uncertainties about the treatment and management of respiratory disease from the public. Uncertainties were ranked by the stakeholder group, and scoping searches refined the uncertainties into systematic review questions.

Results

We received 147 survey responses. We removed duplicates and blank responses and asked the stakeholder group to rank 100 uncertainties. The first round of voting produced a list of 29 topics and the second round resulted in 12 uncertainties. These uncertainties were scoped with literature searches and teased out further into systematic review topics. We identified 3 Cochrane reviews to update, 8 new review topics, and 3 evidence gaps.

Conclusion

We successfully convened a stakeholder group and prioritised a list of uncertainties in the treatment and management of airways diseases that had been identified by patients and the public.

Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is twofold: first, to describe the methods used when involving children and young people (CYP) in developing a paediatric research agenda and, second, to evaluate how the existing literature describes the impact of involving CYP. We distinguish three forms of impact: impact on the research agenda (focused impact), impact on researchers and CYP (diffuse impact) and impact on future research (research impact).

DESIGN

A narrative review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar was conducted from October 2016 to January 2022. The included studies involved at least one CYP in developing a research agenda and were published in English.

RESULTS

22 studies were included; the CYP involved were aged between 6 years and 25 years. Little variation was found in the methods used to involve them. The methods used were James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach (n=16), focus groups (n=2), workshop (n=2), research prioritisation by affected communities (n=1) and combined methods (n=1). Impact was rarely described: focused impact in nine studies, diffuse impact in zero studies and research impact in three studies.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that the JLA approach is most frequently used to involve CYP and that all methods used to involve them are rarely evaluated. It also concludes that the reported impact of involving CYPs is incomplete. This study implies that to convince sceptical researchers of the benefits of involving CYPs and to justify the costs, more attention should be paid to reporting these impacts.

Participatory research: a Priority Setting Partnership for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

Patient and stakeholder engagements in research have increasingly gained attention in healthcare and healthcare-related research. A common and rigorous approach to establish research priorities based on input from people and stakeholders is the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP). The aim of this study was to establish research priorities for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain by engaging with people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives to people living with chronic MSK pain, healthcare professionals (HCP), and researchers working with chronic MSK pain.

METHODS

This JLA-PSP included a nation-wide survey in Denmark, an interim prioritisation, and an online consensus building workshop. The information gained from this was the basis for developing the final list of specific research priorities within chronic MSK pain.

RESULTS

In the initial survey, 1010 respondents (91% people living with chronic MSK pain/relatives, 9% HCPs/researchers) submitted 3121 potential questions. These were summarised into 19 main themes and 36 sub-themes. In the interim prioritisation exercise, 51% people living with pain/relatives and 49% HCPs/researchers reduced the list to 33 research questions prior to the final priority setting workshop. 23 participants attended the online workshop (12 people/relatives, 10 HCPs, and 1 researcher) who reached consensus for the most important research priorities after two rounds of discussion of each question.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several specific research questions generated by people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives, HCPs, and researchers. The stakeholders proposed prioritization of the healthcare system's ability to support patients, focus on developing coherent pathways between sectors and education for both patients and HCP. These research questions can form the basis for future studies, funders, and be used to align research with end-users' priorities.

Keeping the Agenda Current: Evolution of Australian Lived Experience Mental Health Research Priorities

The value of including consumers’ and carers’ views at the early stages of study design is increasingly being recognised as essential to improving the relevance and quality of research. One method of achieving this is by actively seeking and regularly updating consumer and carer priorities for mental health research. The current study presents priorities for mental health research collected from two virtual World Cafés with consumers and carers (n = 4, n = 7) held in 2021. Over 200 priorities were identified (13 themes, 64 subthemes), which were then compared with two combined data collection activities from 2013 (face-to-face forum; n = 25), and 2017 (online survey; n = 70). There appears to be some evolution in consumer and carer priorities over time. A key difference was that in the previous studies, mental health service issues were at the individual service delivery level, whereas in the current study, a broader focus was on mental health systems of care and issues around service funding, accessibility, and equity of access. It is possible these changes may also have resulted from key differences between the studies, including the methods, setting, and participants. Overall, similar to our previous studies no clear priorities were identified; however, a significant number of important research topics were identified by consumers and carers, providing a rich agenda from which to improve the management of mental health.

Setting the international research agenda for sarcoma together with patients and carers: first results of the Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN) priority setting partnership

Background

Research in sarcomas has historically been the domain of scientists and clinicians attempting to understand the disease to develop effective treatments. This traditional approach of placing scientific rigor before the patient’s reality is changing. This evolution is reflected in the growth of patient-centered organizations and patient advocacy groups that seek to meaningfully integrate patients into the research process. The aims of this study are to identify the unanswered questions regarding sarcomas (including gastrointestinal stromal tumors and desmoid fibromatosis) from patient, carer, and clinical perspectives and examine how patients and carers want to be involved in sarcoma research.

Methods

The Patient-Powered Research Network of Sarcoma Patients EuroNet set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) in collaboration with stakeholders from the sarcoma research field. This PSP is largely based on the James Lind Alliance methodology.

Results

In total, 264 sarcoma patients (73%) and carers (27%) from all over the world participated in the online survey and covered the full spectrum of sarcomas. The topics mentioned were labeled in accordance with the Common Scientific Outline of the International Cancer Research Partnership and lists for potential research topics, advocacy topics, and requests for information were constructed. With regard to patient and carer involvement, 64% were very willing to be actively involved and mainly in the following areas: sharing perspectives, discussing patient-clinician interactions, and attending research meetings.

Conclusions

The first results of this sarcoma PSP identified important research questions, but also important topics for patient advocacy groups and further improvement of information materials. Sarcoma patients and carers have a strong wish to be involved in multiple aspects of sarcoma research. The next phase will identify the top 10 research priorities per tumor type. These priorities will provide guidance for research that will achieve greatest value and impact.

•

The results from this international sarcoma Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) identified important research questions.

•

This PSP also identified important topics for patient advocacy and requests for information.

•

Sarcoma patients and carers have a strong wish to be involved in multiple aspects of sarcoma research.

•

The next phase of this PSP will aim to prioritize the research questions per tumor type.

Healthcare Professional and Service User Perspectives on Formal Educational Programmes for Children and Young People with Cancer in the UK

Caring for children and young people with cancer requires specific knowledge, skills and experience to deliver the complex care regimes both within the hospital or community environment. This study explored the educational gaps in caring for children and young people with cancer. To address this, a mixed methodology approach was adopted in two phases. Phase one was a questionnaire circulated to healthcare professional members (n = 850) of the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group and Managed Service Network, Scotland. Response rate (n = 121) (14%) was achieved. In phase two of the study, a focus groups (n = 4) was conducted with young people in Scotland through the Managed Service Network. This was to gain a critical understanding from service user perspective and what they deemed as important to their overall care delivery. Phase one: healthcare professional results reported that 76% (n = 93) were aware of education; 69% (n = 84) found that knowledge supported practice development, but only 45% (n = 55) finding current education provision useful. The top education topics identified to be lacking in educational availability were communication, psychological support, dealing with young people, supportive care, diagnosis and treatment and challenges to learning. Several participants 64% (n = 78) suggested that funding and time was a barrier, and that there was a lack of provision. Phase two: Findings from the focus group (n = 4) thematic analysis identified five key themes. Service users expected professionals to be knowledgeable and trained, but when talking about experiencing care, gave insights into the gaps in their care. Findings suggest that formal cancer education is required.

Associations between diagnostic time intervals and health-related quality of life, clinical anxiety and depression in adolescents and young adults with cancer: cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort

BACKGROUND

The association of diagnostic intervals and outcomes is poorly understood in adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYA). We investigated associations between diagnostic intervals and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression in a large AYA cohort.

METHODS

Participants aged 12-24 completed interviews post-diagnosis, providing data on diagnostic experiences and the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) HRQoL, anxiety and depression. Demographic and cancer information were obtained from clinical and national records. Six diagnostic intervals were considered. Relationships between intervals and PROs were examined using regression models.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and thirty participants completed interviews. In adjusted models, across 28 of 30 associations, longer intervals were associated with poorer PROs. Patient intervals (symptom onset to first seeing a GP) of ≥1 month were associated with greater depression (adjusted odds ratio (aOR):1.7, 95% Confidence Interval (CI):1.1-2.5) compared to <1 month. ≥3 pre-referral GP consultations were associated with greater anxiety (aOR:1.6, CI:1.1-2.3) compared to 1-2 consultations. Symptom onset to first oncology appointment intervals of ≥2 months was associated with impaired HRQoL (aOR:1.8, CI:1.2-2.5) compared to <2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged diagnostic intervals in AYA are associated with an increased risk of impaired HRQoL, anxiety and depression. Identifying and delivering interventions for this high-risk group is a priority.

Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide

Background

Research and clinical outcomes that matter to people with lived experience can significantly differ from those outcomes studied by researchers. To inform a future Cochrane review of suicide and self‐harm prevention interventions, we aimed to work with young people with relevant lived experience to agree on priority outcomes.

Design

Four participatory codesign workshops were completed across two sites (New Zealand, United Kingdom) with 28 young people in total. We iteratively adapted the methods over the course of the study.

Results

‘Improved coping’ and ‘safer/more accepting environment to disclose’ were the final top‐rated outcomes. ‘Reduction of self‐harm’ was considered a low priority as it could be misleading, stigmatizing and was considered a secondary consequence of other improvements. In contrast to typical research outcomes, young people emphasized the diversity of experience, the dynamic nature of improvement and holistic and asset‐based framing. Methodologically, dialogue using design materials (personas) to thematically explore outcomes was effective in overcoming the initial challenge of disparate quantitative ratings.

Discussion

The results will directly inform the development of a Cochrane review, enabling identification of whether and how outcomes of most importance to young people are measured in trials. Rather than producing discrete measurable outcomes that could be easily added to the systematic review, the young people challenged the academic conceptualization of outcomes, with implications for future evidence synthesis and intervention research, and for future codesign.

Patient or Public Contribution

Young people with lived experience were codesigners of the outcomes, and their feedback informed iterative changes to the study methods.

An app with brief behavioural support to promote physical activity after a cancer diagnosis (APPROACH): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

There are multiple health benefits from participating in physical activity after a cancer diagnosis, but many people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC) are not meeting physical activity guidelines. App-based interventions offer a promising platform for intervention delivery. This trial aims to pilot a theory-driven, app-based intervention that promotes brisk walking among people living with and beyond cancer. The primary aim is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of study procedures before conducting a larger randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

This is an individually randomised, two-armed pilot RCT. Patients with localised or metastatic breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, who are aged 16 years or over, will be recruited from a single hospital site in South Yorkshire in the UK. The intervention includes an app designed to encourage brisk walking (Active 10) supplemented with habit-based behavioural support in the form of two brief telephone/video calls, an information leaflet, and walking planners. The primary outcomes will be feasibility and acceptability of the study procedures. Demographic and medical characteristics will be collected at baseline, through self-report and hospital records. Secondary outcomes for the pilot (assessed at 0 and 3 months) will be accelerometer measured and self-reported physical activity, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference, and patient-reported outcomes of quality of life, fatigue, sleep, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, and habit strength for walking. Qualitative interviews will explore experiences of participating or reasons for declining to participate. Parameters for the intended primary outcome measure (accelerometer measured average daily minutes of brisk walking (≥ 100 steps/min)) will inform a sample size calculation for the future RCT and a preliminary economic evaluation will be conducted.

Discussion

This pilot study will inform the design of a larger RCT to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this intervention in people LWBC.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18063498. Registered 16 April 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01028-w.

Research priorities to improve the health of children and adults with dysphagia: a National Institute of Health Research and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists research priority setting partnership

OBJECTIVE

To conduct the first UK-wide research priority setting project informing researchers and funders of critical knowledge gaps requiring investigation to improve the health and well-being of patients with eating, drinking and swallowing disorders (dysphagia) and their carers.

DESIGN

A priority setting partnership between the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists using a modified nominal group technique. A steering group and NIHR representatives oversaw four project phases: (1) survey gathering research suggestions, (2) verification and aggregation of suggestions with systematic review research recommendations, (3) multistakeholder workshop to develop research questions, (4) interim priority setting via an online ranking survey and (5) final priority setting.

SETTING

UK health services and community.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with dysphagia, carers and professionals who work with children and adults with dysphagia from the UK.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six speech and language therapists submitted 332 research suggestions related to dysphagia. These were mapped to 88 research recommendations from systematic reviews to form 24 'uncertainty topics' (knowledge gaps that are answerable by research). Four patients, 1 carer and 30 healthcare professionals collaboratively produced 77 research questions in relation to these topics. Thereafter, 387 patients, carers and professionals with experience of dysphagia prioritised 10 research questions using an interim prioritisation survey. Votes and feedback for each question were collated and reviewed by the steering and dysphagia reference groups. Nine further questions were added to the long-list and top 10 lists of priority questions were agreed.

CONCLUSION

Three top 10 lists of topics grouped as adults, neonates and children, and all ages, and a further long list of questions were identified by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as research priorities to improve the lives of those with dysphagia.

The Molecular Landscape of Medulloblastoma in Teenagers and Young Adults

Medulloblastoma (MB) is a childhood malignant brain tumour but also occurs in teenagers and young adults (TYA). Considering that MB is heterogeneous, this study aimed to define the molecular landscape of MBs in TYAs. We collated more than 2000 MB samples that included 287 TYA patients (13-24 years). We performed computational analyses consisting of genome-wide methylation and transcriptomic profiles and developed a prognostics model for the TYAs with MB. We identified that TYAs predominantly comprised of Group 4 (40%) and Sonic Hedgehog (SHH)-activated (33%) tumours, with Wingless-type (WNT, 17%) and Group 3 (10%) being less common. TYAs with SHH tumours displayed significantly more gene expression alterations, whereas no gene was detected in the Group 4 tumours. Across MB subgroups, we identified unique and shared sets of TYA-specific differentially methylated probes and DNA-binding motifs. Finally, a 22-gene signature stratified TYA patients into high- and low-risk groups, and the prognostic significance of these risk groups persisted in multivariable regression models (P = 0.001). This study is an important step toward delineating the molecular landscape of TYAs with MB. The emergence of novel genes and pathways may provide a basis for improved clinical management of TYA with MB.

Next Step for Global Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology: A Core Patient-Centered Outcome Set

The relatively small number of cancers in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) age group, those aged 15-39 years, does not appropriately reflect the personal and societal costs of cancer in this population, as reflected in the potential years of life lost or saved; the decreased productivity and health-related quality of life due to the impact of the disease during formative years and long-term complications or disabilities. Improvements in care and outcomes for AYAs with cancer require collaboration among different stakeholders at different levels (patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry, and policymakers). Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured globally in research, routine clinical practice, specifically for AYAs with cancer, with outcomes that are well defined based on the perspective of those who are affected and assessed with validated measures is highly required. A globally implemented COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate better pooling of research data and the implementation of high-quality healthcare registries, which by benchmarking not only nationally, but also internationally, may ultimately improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients. We reflect on the need to develop a COS for AYA with cancer, the arenas of application and the challenges of implementing an age-specific COS in research and clinical practice.

Specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: BRIGHTLIGHT research programme

Background

When cancer occurs in teenagers and young adults, the impact is far beyond the physical disease and treatment burden. The effect on psychological, social, educational and other normal development can be profound. In addition, outcomes including improvements in survival and participation in clinical trials are poorer than in younger children and older adults with similar cancers. These unique circumstances have driven the development of care models specifically for teenagers and young adults with cancer, often focused on a dedicated purpose-designed patient environments supported by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in the needs of teenagers and young adults. In England, this is commissioned by NHS England and delivered through 13 principal treatment centres. There is a lack of evaluation that identifies the key components of specialist care for teenagers and young adults, and any improvement in outcomes and costs associated with it.

Objective

To determine whether or not specialist services for teenagers and young adults with cancer add value.

Design

A series of multiple-methods studies centred on a prospective longitudinal cohort of teenagers and young adults who were newly diagnosed with cancer.

Settings

Multiple settings, including an international Delphi study of health-care professionals, qualitative observation in specialist services for teenagers and young adults, and NHS trusts.

Participants

A total of 158 international teenage and young adult experts, 42 health-care professionals from across England, 1143 teenagers and young adults, and 518 caregivers.

Main outcome measures

The main outcomes were specific to each project: key areas of competence for the Delphi survey; culture of teenagers and young adults care in the case study; and unmet needs from the caregiver survey. The primary outcome for the cohort participants was quality of life and the cost to the NHS and patients in the health economic evaluation.

Data sources

Multiple sources were used, including responses from health-care professionals through a Delphi survey and face-to-face interviews, interview data from teenagers and young adults, the BRIGHTLIGHT survey to collect patient-reported data, patient-completed cost records, hospital clinical records, routinely collected NHS data and responses from primary caregivers.

Results

Competencies associated with specialist care for teenagers and young adults were identified from a Delphi study. The key to developing a culture of teenage and young adult care was time and commitment. An exposure variable, the teenagers and young adults Cancer Specialism Scale, was derived, allowing categorisation of patients to three groups, which were defined by the time spent in a principal treatment centre: SOME (some care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults, and the rest of their care in either a children’s or an adult cancer unit), ALL (all care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults) or NONE (no care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults). The cohort study showed that the NONE group was associated with superior quality of life, survival and health status from 6 months to 3 years after diagnosis. The ALL group was associated with faster rates of quality-of-life improvement from 6 months to 3 years after diagnosis. The SOME group was associated with poorer quality of life and slower improvement in quality of life over time. Economic analysis revealed that NHS costs and travel costs were similar between the NONE and ALL groups. The ALL group had greater out-of-pocket expenses, and the SOME group was associated with greater NHS costs and greater expense for patients. However, if caregivers had access to a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults (i.e. in the ALL or SOME groups), then they had fewer unmet support and information needs.

Limitations

Our definition of exposure to specialist care using Hospital Episode Statistics-determined time spent in hospital was insufficient to capture the detail of episodes or account for the variation in specialist services. Quality of life was measured first at 6 months, but an earlier measure may have shown different baselines.

Conclusions

We could not determine the added value of specialist cancer care for teenagers and young adults as defined using the teenage and young adult Cancer Specialism Scale and using quality of life as a primary end point. A group of patients (i.e. those defined as the SOME group) appeared to be less advantaged across a range of outcomes. There was variation in the extent to which principal treatment centres for teenagers and young adults were established, and the case study indicated that the culture of teenagers and young adults care required time to develop and embed. It will therefore be important to establish whether or not the evolution in services since 2012–14, when the cohort was recruited, improves quality of life and other patient-reported and clinical outcomes.

Future work

A determination of whether or not the SOME group has similar or improved quality of life and other patient-reported and clinical outcomes in current teenage and young adult service delivery is essential if principal treatment centres for teenagers and young adults are being commissioned to provide ‘joint care’ models with other providers.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prioritizing Chinese medicine clinical research questions in cancer palliative care from patient and caregiver perspectives

BACKGROUND

Chinese medicine (CM) modalities, including acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), are popular palliative interventions among patients with cancer, but further clinical research is required to assess their effectiveness and safety.

OBJECTIVE

To prioritize top ten important CM clinical research questions from patients with cancer, cancer survivors and caregivers' perspectives via a face-to-face prioritization workshop in Hong Kong.

METHODS

A list of 25 CM clinical research questions for cancer palliative care, which were identified from existing systematic reviews (SRs) and overview of SRs, was presented to 17 participants (patients with cancer [n = 5], cancer survivors [n = 6] and caregivers [n = 6]). The participants were then invited to establish consensus on prioritizing top ten research questions.

RESULTS

Among the top ten priorities, five (50%) focused on acupuncture and related therapies, while five (50%) were on CHM. The three most important research priorities were (i) manual acupuncture plus opioids for relieving pain; (ii) CHM for improving quality of life among patients receiving chemotherapy; and (iii) concurrent use of CHM plus loperamide for reducing stomatitis.

CONCLUSION

The top ten participant-endorsed CM clinical research priorities for cancer palliative care can guide local researchers on future direction. They can also inform local research funders on patient-centred allocation of limited funding. Under limited research funding, the most important co-prioritized research question from professional and patient perspectives may be addressed first.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients with cancer, cancer survivors and caregivers participated in conduct of the study to prioritize CM clinical research questions.

"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?

Exploring Young People's Experience of Ending Active Cancer Treatment: When the "Little Cancer Treatment Bubble" Pops

BACKGROUND

The end of active cancer treatment is described as a stressful period for adolescents and young adults (AYAs). However, research evidence describing the experience of AYAs as they transition from active treatment into follow-up care is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand AYAs' experiences within the first 12 months of ending active treatment.

METHODS

Data were collected using semistructured interviews, which were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative analysis of transcripts was used to identify key themes/subthemes.

RESULTS

Eleven AYAs (8 female participants), diagnosed with cancer aged 17 to 25 years and 19 to 26 years at point of interview, participated. At time of interview, 7 were within 6 months of treatment completion, and in 4 participants, treatment ended 6 to 12 months prior. Three main themes were identified: (1) challenges of social reintegration and self-identity, (2) expectations versus the lived experience of ending treatment, and (3) sudden loss of the safe "bubble" of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents and young adults were underprepared for and challenged by the unexpected emotional and physical consequences of ending active cancer treatment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Young people require information and support to prepare for ending active treatment and reintegration to everyday life. Preparation for the short- and long-term physical, social, and psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis even when treatment ends will assist young people in managing this transition. Further research is required to develop and test interventions to provide timely, structured, and equitable information and support at the end of treatment to better prepare AYAs for the challenges they may face as treatment ends.

Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey

Objective

We conducted a UK‐wide survey to identify the top 10 research questions for young people's cancer. We conducted secondary analysis of questions submitted, which were ‘out‐of‐scope’ of the original survey aim. We sought to disseminate these questions, to inform practice, policy and the development of potential interventions to support young people with cancer.

Design

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Participants

Young people aged 13‐24 with a current/previous cancer diagnosis, their families/friends/partners and professionals who work with this population.

Methods

Eight hundred and fifty‐five potential research questions were submitted, and 326 were classified as ‘out‐of‐scope’. These questions, along with 49 ‘free‐text’ comments, were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

The 375 out‐of‐scope questions and comments were submitted by: 68 young people, 81 family members/partners/friends and 42 professionals. Ten overarching themes were identified: diagnostic experience; communication; coordination of care; information needs and lack of information; service provision; long‐term effects and aftercare support; family support; financial impact; end‐of life care; and research methods and current research.

Conclusions

The need to tailor services, information and communication is a striking thread evidenced across the ‘out‐of‐scope’ questions. Gaps in information highlight implications for practice in revisiting information needs throughout the cancer trajectory. We must advocate for specialist care for young people and promote the research priorities and these findings to funding bodies, charities, young people and health and social care policymakers, in order to generate an evidence base to inform effective interventions across the cancer trajectory and improve outcomes.

Patient/public contributions

Patients and carers were equal stakeholders throughout.

Acceptance and commitment therapy for young brain tumour survivors: study protocol for an acceptability and feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Survivors of childhood brain tumours have the poorest health-related quality of life of all cancer survivors due to the multiple physical and psychological sequelae of brain tumours and their treatment. Remotely delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) may be a suitable and accessible psychological intervention to support young people who have survived brain tumours. This study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of remotely delivered ACT to improve quality of life among these young survivors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a two-arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing ACT with waitlist control at 12-week follow-up as the primary endpoint. Seventy-two participants will be recruited, who are aged 11-24 and have completed brain tumour treatment. Participants will be randomised to receive 12 weeks of ACT either immediately or after a 12-week wait. The DNA-v model of ACT will be employed, which is a developmentally appropriate model for young people. Feasibility will be assessed using the proportion of those showing interest who consent to the trial and complete the intervention. Acceptability will be assessed using participant evaluations of the intervention, alongside qualitative interviews and treatment diaries analysed thematically. A range of clinical outcome measures will also assess physical and mental health, everyday functioning, quality of life and service usage at 12-week follow-up. The durability of treatment effects will be assessed by further follow-up assessments at 24 weeks, 36 weeks and 48 weeks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was given by East Midlands, Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/EM/0237). Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, through public events and relevant third sector organisations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN10903290; NCT04722237.

Dutch patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals generate first nationwide research agenda for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders.

METHODS

The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

Pre-Implementation Assessment of the Acceptability of Using Circulating microRNAs for Follow-Up of Malignant Germ-Cell Tumors

BACKGROUND

MicroRNAs from the miR-371~373 and miR-302/367 clusters, particularly miR-371a-3p, are promising biomarkers for blood-based diagnosis and disease monitoring of malignant germ cell tumors (GCTs) and are nearing clinical implementation. These biomarkers have superior sensitivity and specificity compared with current markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). We explored patient acceptability of using circulating microRNAs to replace multiple serial computed tomography (CT) scans in malignant GCT follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two workshops involved interactive presentations and focus groups. Discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative thematic analysis of transcripts identified the key themes.

RESULTS

Prior to the workshops, potential participants expressed concern about the adoption of new blood tests due to personal experiences of the limitations of existing (AFP/HCG) markers. Twelve males (22-57 years of age; currently, 26-59 years of age) with a malignant GCT diagnosis participated; all were in follow-up. Three had experienced recurrence. Participants had cumulative exposure of between 1 and 15 CT scans. Data saturation was reached at the second workshop; five themes emerged underpinning preference for microRNA testing versus CT scans: (1) increased sensitivity and safety, (2) reduced financial costs, (3) reduced time for testing and results, (4) practicalities, and (5) reduced anxiety. However, some participants perceived an increased diagnostic capacity of CT scans versus blood testing.

CONCLUSION

This first user consultation of circulating microRNA testing for future malignant GCT follow-up suggests high acceptability with potential patient and healthcare system benefits.

Parental Experiences of Adolescent Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Qualitative Study

Objective

Cancer-related fatigue is common, disabling, and chronic, but professional help is not necessarily sought. Parents can support symptom management and facilitate help-seeking. This study explored parental experiences of their adolescent’s cancer-related fatigue and what they do to help.

Methods

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 parents of 17 adolescents aged 12–18 who were previously diagnosed with cancer. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.

Results

Three high-order themes were generated. Firstly, “fatigue is inevitable and unpredictable.” This encompassed parental perceptions of fatigue as variable, distinct from normal tiredness, and linked to sleep and mood. Fatigue was seen as arising from cancer, which rendered parents helpless. Secondly, “fatigue is disruptive to normal life” beyond cancer treatment, which is contrary to expectations. Thirdly, parents managed fatigue by trying to balance the adolescent’s desires for normality and their own perception of what is realistic with encouraging activities, and by seeking support from others.

Conclusions

Parents see adolescent cancer-related fatigue as multi-faceted and experience it as unpredictable and attributed to cancer. They struggle to distinguish normal adolescent behavior from problematic fatigue, and to balance supporting and empowering the adolescent to live life to the fullest whilst also being realistic about the limitations imposed by fatigue and the benefits of activity. Parents try to manage fatigue practically but want more information about adolescent cancer-related fatigue to help establish their own and their adolescent’s expectations.

Association of Self-reported Presenting Symptoms With Timeliness of Help-Seeking Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the BRIGHTLIGHT Study

Importance

Evidence regarding the presenting symptoms of cancer in adolescents and young adults can support the development of early diagnosis interventions.

Objective

To examine common presenting symptoms in adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years who subsequently received a diagnosis of cancer and potential variation in time to help-seeking by presenting symptom.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter study is a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study, which was conducted across hospitals in England. Participants included adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years with cancer. Information on 17 prespecified presenting symptoms and the interval between symptom onset and help-seeking (the patient interval) was collected through structured face-to-face interviews and was linked to national cancer registry data. Data analysis was performed from January 2018 to August 2019.

Exposures

Self-reported presenting symptoms.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were frequencies of presenting symptoms and associated symptom signatures by cancer group and the proportion of patients with each presenting symptom whose patient interval was longer than 1 month.

Results

The study population consisted of 803 adolescents and young adults with valid symptom information (443 male [55%]; 509 [63%] aged 19-24 years; 705 [88%] White). The number of symptoms varied by cancer group: for example, 88 patients with leukemia (86%) presented with 2 or more symptoms, whereas only 9 patients with melanoma (31%) presented with multiple symptoms. In total, 352 unique symptom combinations were reported, with the 10 most frequent combinations accounting for 304 patients (38%). Lump or swelling was reported by more than one-half the patients (419 patients [52%; 95% CI, 49%-56%]). Other common presenting symptoms across all cancers were extreme tiredness (308 patients [38%; 95% CI, 35%-42%]), unexplained pain (281 patients [35%; 95% CI, 32%-38%]), night sweats (192 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]), lymphadenopathy (191 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]), and weight loss (190 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]). The relative frequencies of presenting symptoms also varied by cancer group; some symptoms (such as lump or swelling) were highly prevalent across several cancer groups (seen in >50% of patients with lymphomas, germ cell cancers, carcinomas, bone tumors, and soft-tissue sarcomas). More than 1 in 4 patients (27%) reported a patient interval longer than 1 month; this varied from 6% (1 patient) for fits and seizures to 43% (18 patients) for recurrent infections.

Conclusions and Relevance

Adolescents and young adults with cancer present with a broad spectrum of symptoms, some of which are shared across cancer types. These findings point to discordant presenting symptom prevalence estimates when information is obtained from patient report vs health records and indicate the need for further symptom epidemiology research in this population.

Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: Barriers in Access to Psychosocial Support

Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) experience cancer at a time of significant developmental transition. Both disease and treatment impact psychosocial well-being in significant, persistent ways. While the impacts are now described, and the need for psychosocial care is increasingly well recognized, to date, the barriers in access to care have not been well delineated. This is essential to understand to facilitate access to appropriate care and improve outcomes. Methods: This study explored the barriers in access to psychosocial care for young people. Semistructured, audio-recorded interviews were undertaken with 16 AYAs aged 15-25 years. Eligible participants were diagnosed within the previous 24 months and recruited through the Queensland Youth Cancer Service (QYCS). Transcribed interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Results: Barriers in access to support were related to person-centered, service-related, and systemic factors. Barriers experienced at diagnosis and during treatment were less common compared with barriers after treatment; these were significant and largely related to a lack of holistic, multidisciplinary survivorship care. Conclusion: Barriers in access to psychosocial care are multifactorial, although most can be addressed through health-service responses. Ensuring standardized referral and repeated introduction of psychosocial care for young people is imperative, regardless of location of treatment. Flexible services are especially important for patients treated across different facilities. The development of comprehensive post-treatment survivorship models of care is also essential. Continued evaluation of the experience of young people and the barriers they face is also crucial to ensure responsive service development and promote optimal care.

Social ecological interventions to increase physical activity in children and young people living with and beyond cancer: a systematic review

Objective: To identify the behaviour change techniques and intervention components associated with the promotion of physical activity (PA) for children and young people living with and beyond cancer. Design and main outcome measures: A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted on the evidence on PA interventions for children and young people (up to 30 years of age) living with and beyond cancer using a social ecological framework. Results: Out of 12 studies, 8 were shown to change PA. Intervention components included (1) behavioural (Instruction on how to perform the behaviour, credible source, behavioural demonstration and rehearsal), (2) cognitive-emotional (targeting attitude, perceived behavioural control, intentions, resilience and achievement) (3) socio-cultural (family and peer support for PA), (4) environmental (providing access to resources, environmental restructuring, safety), (5) demographic (child, adolescent, young adult or mixed) and (6) medical (tailored exercise depending on age and cancer stage). Conclusions: Interventions designed to increase physical activity participation and adherence during and beyond cancer treatment for young people should integrate psychosocial (behavioural, cognitive-emotional, social), environmental and medical intervention components. Our conceptual model can be used to inform the development of interventions and guides future research objectives and priorities.

Trekstock RENEW: evaluation of a 12-week exercise referral programme for young adult cancer survivors delivered by a cancer charity

Purpose

To evaluate the uptake and effect of RENEW, a 12-week exercise referral programme for young adult cancer survivors delivered by Trekstock, a UK-based cancer charity.

Methods

The RENEW programme provides one-to-one individually tailored support from a level-4 cancer-rehabilitation-qualified gym instructor, free gym membership and access to information resources online. Objective and self-report data on cardiorespiratory function, strength, body composition, fatigue, sleep quality and general health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was collected from participants before the programme (week 0), immediately after (week 12) and 1 month later (week 16).

Results

Forty-eight young adults (83% female; mean age, 29 years) with a history of cancer took part within the 12-week programme and completed the evaluation measures. Physical activity (PA) levels significantly increased following the programme and remained raised at follow-up. Improvements in physical function were significant: peak expiratory flow (mean change, 30.96, p = 0.003), sit-and-reach test (mean change, 6.55 ± 4.54, p < 0.0001), and 6-mine-walk test (mean change, 0.12 ± 0.04, p < 0.0001). No significant changes in BMI, weight or muscle mass were observed. Improvements in fatigue, sleep and HRQoL were observed across the programme and at follow-up (mean change, weeks 0–16; 8.04 ± 1.49 p < 0.01; 1.05 ± 0.49 p < 0.05; and − 0.9 ± 0.46 p = 0.051, respectively). Changes in self-efficacy to exercise and motivations to exercise were not observed at 12 weeks or at follow-up.

Conclusions

Results suggest that the RENEW exercise referral programme has a positive impact upon some domains of physical function and well-being among young adult cancer survivors.

Implication for cancer survivors

Exercise referral programmes delivered by charity organisations are one means by which PA behaviour change support may be widely disseminated to young adult cancer survivors. Health professionals and charitable bodies specialising in the care of young adults with cancer should look to address factors which prevent engagement and uptake of ‘real-world’ PA interventions such as the RENEW programme.