Search

Background: While multiple myeloma continues to be an incurable cancer, advances in its understanding and management have led to significantly improved survival rates. Survivorship interventions for those living with multiple myeloma remain scarce, despite mounting evidence for multiple unmet support needs among multiple myeloma survivors. The current study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a novel multidisciplinary group-based multiple myeloma survivorship intervention. Methods: A mixed-method, repeated measures feasibility study was conducted within a routine cancer support service. Seven participants, aged over 18, who had a multiple myeloma diagnosis and were clinically assessed as suitable for the intervention by their haemato-oncologist, attended online for six weekly group sessions of physical exercise and self-management input, completing qualitative, physical and self-report measures at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up. Results: The intervention was deemed overall feasible, with relatively high uptake, participants describing it as largely acceptable and appropriate and providing recommendations for feasibility-enhancing intervention refinements. Findings regarding the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention were mixed. While qualitative analyses stressed the benefits of the intervention (e.g. peer support, connectedness, improved well-being) and large effect sizes were observed for most physical outcomes, no improvements in self-reported outcomes (i.e. quality of life, fatigue) were reported. Conclusions: This study represents the first investigation of a promising novel survivorship intervention for those living with multiple myeloma, highlighting the importance of peer support in particular, on which future clinical trials, aiming to establish the intervention's effectiveness for routine care, will be able to build. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizen deliberation is a prominent theme in health policy literature. It is believed that citizens who deliberate may influence the setting of public health-care priorities. Currently, in some jurisdictions, citizens are members of community health boards, and thus have a forum to articulate and share values that could affect the reduction of health inequalities within their communities. However, there is little conceptual clarity on the character of citizen deliberation, or, more specifically, how citizens may articulate and share values.This paper reviews the literature on citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities; discusses potential challenges for citizens in setting health-care priorities; outlines a developing theory of citizen deliberation; describes how citizens may articulate and share values that ground their health-care priorities and outlines implications of a developing theory of citizen deliberation, its relevance to UK study findings, and to community health boards in setting health-care priorities.As members of community health boards, citizens can evaluate their subjective experiences. In reasoning about embedded values, citizens may gain insight into the kind of community they aspire to be, and, in that process, examine their intentions, including whether to serve self or other(s). Citizens who articulate and share values such as respect, generosity or equity may justify health-care priorities that create opportunities for all community members to gain mastery over their lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]