Search

: Objective: To examine general practitioners’ views about how health assessments for older people should be conducted. Methods: General practitioners were randomly sampled from a national database of medical practitioners and invited to complete a survey. Survey items explored general practitioners’ views about essential components of a 75+ Health Assessment and who should assess each component, consultation time, use of standardised templates and tools, and home visits. Results: Overall, 185 (19.2%) general practitioners participated. Of 61 items presented, 24 were rated ‘essential’ by ≥70% of practitioners, with an average estimated consultation time of 65 minutes. Of the 24 essential items, it was perceived that 21 could be assessed by either a general practitioner or clinic nurse. Most practitioners indicated a standardised template (86%) and standardised tools for complex issues (79%) should be used, and home visits conducted (75%). Conclusions: General practitioners agreed on 24 items as essential for every health assessment, with assessments estimated to take more than one hour. Implications for public health: Increases to remuneration for prolonged assessments or mechanisms for improving efficiency and quality of assessments are needed. Acceptable mechanisms may include standardised patient‐reported tools, standardised templates and the use of non‐medical staff to assist with assessments., Globally, many countries are projected to experience ageing populations.[sup.1] In Australia, approximately 15% of the population was aged 65 or older in 2017, with this figure expected to rise to [...]

Background: The 75+ health assessment has been identified as a suitable trigger to introduce advance care planning (ACP) to general practice patients. Australian general practitioners (GPs) were surveyed to explore their perceptions, attitudes and practices in introducing ACP during 75+ health assessments. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of Australian GPs covering their personal, professional and workplace characteristics, their current practice regarding ACP within a 75+ health assessment, and their attitude towards ACP. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse the factors associated with routinely discussing ACP as part of the 75+ health assessment. Results: A total of 185 (19.2%) out of 964 eligible GPs returned a completed survey. Most GPs reported that patients interested in ACP were supported by the GPs or the practice nurse. Two factors, (1) attitude that ACP is an essential component of the 75+ health assessment, and (2) regional or rural location of the practice, had a statistically and clinically significant association with the GP's self-reported discussion of ACP during 75+ health assessments. Conclusions: GPs showed a high level of support and involvement in discussing ACP during 75+ health assessments. ACP support during 75+ health assessments was often provided directly by the GP or via the practice nurse. Given the international evidence that ACP training programs improve skills and knowledge, and foster positive attitudes towards ACP, there is an important need to continue funding ACP training programs for GPs and practice nurses. The 75+ health assessment has been identified as a suitable trigger to introduce advance care planning (ACP) to general practice patients. Our cross-sectional survey of 185 Australian GPs showed that (1) most patients interested in ACP were supported by general practices, and (2) the attitude that ACP is an essential component of the 75+ health assessment and regional/rural location were associated with GPs' discussion of ACP during 75+ health assessments. More support and funding may be required to follow up on these important discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: High quality research involving Indigenous people with cognitive impairment and dementia is critical for informing evidence-based policy and practice. We examined the volume, scope and ethical considerations of research related to dementia with Indigenous populations globally from January 2000–December 2021. Methods: Studies were included if they were published in English from 2000 to 2021 and provided original data that focused on cognitive impairment or dementia in any Indigenous population. Results: The search yielded 13,009 papers of which, 76 met inclusion criteria. The overall number of papers increased over time. Studies were mostly conducted in Australia with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (n = 30; 39%). Twenty-six papers directly involved Indigenous participants with cognitive impairment or dementia. Of these studies, ethics approval was commonly required from two or more committees (n = 23, 88.5%). Ethical and legal governance frameworks were rarely discussed. Discussion: There is a clear need for further robust studies examining cognitive impairment and dementia with Indigenous populations. Future research should consider the ethical aspects of involving Indigenous participants with cognitive impairment in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (mini-MAC) is a well-recognised, popular measure of coping in psycho-oncology and assesses five cancer-specific coping strategies. It has been suggested that these five subscales could be grouped to form the over-arching adaptive and maladptive coping subscales to facilitate the interpretation and clinical application of the scale. Despite the popularity of the mini-MAC, few studies have examined its psychometric properties among long-term cancer survivors, and further validation of the mini-MAC is needed to substantiate its use with the growing population of survivors. Therefore, this study examined the psychometric properties and dimensionality of the mini-MAC in a sample of long-term cancer survivors using Rasch analysis. Methods RUMM 2030 was used to analyse the mini-MAC data (n=851). Separate Rasch analyses were conducted for each of the original mini-MAC subscales as well as the over-arching adaptive and maladaptive coping subscales to examine summary and individual model fit statistics, person separation index (PSI), response format, local dependency, targeting, item bias (or differential item functioning -DIF), and dimensionality. Results For the fighting spirit, fatalism, and helplessness-hopelessness subscales, a revised three-point response format seemed more optimal than the original four-point response. To achieve model fit, items were deleted from four of the five subscales – Anxious Preoccupation items 7, 25, and 29; Cognitive Avoidance items 11 and 17; Fighting Spirit item 18; and Helplessness-Hopelessness items 16 and 20. For those subscales with sufficient items, analyses supported unidimensionality. Combining items to form the adaptive and maladaptive subscales was partially supported. Conclusions The original five subscales required item deletion and/or rescaling to improve goodness of fit to the Rasch model. While evidence was found for overarching subscales of adaptive and maladaptive coping, extensive modifications were necessary to achieve this result. Further exploration and validation of over-arching subscales assessing adaptive and maladaptive coping is necessary with cancer survivors.

Abstract Background An understanding of the nature and magnitude of the impact of cancer is critical to planning how best to deliver supportive care to the growing population of cancer survivors whose need for care may span many years. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of and factors associated with moderate to high level unmet supportive care needs among adult cancer survivors six months after diagnosis. Methods A population-based sample of adult cancer survivors diagnosed with one of the eight most incident cancers in Australia was recruited from two state-based cancer registries. Data for 1323 survivors were obtained by self-report questionnaire and linkage with cancer registry data. Unmet needs were assessed by the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34). The data were examined using chi-square and multiple logistic regression analyses. Results A total of 444 (37%) survivors reported at least one ‘moderate to high’ level unmet need and 496 (42%) reported ‘no need’ for help. Moderate to high level unmet needs were most commonly reported in the psychological (25%) and physical aspects of daily living (20%) domains. The five most frequently endorsed items of moderate to high unmet need were concerns about the worries of those close to them (15%), fears about the cancer spreading (14%), not being able to do the things they used to do (13%), uncertainty about the future (13%) and lack of energy/tiredness (12%). Survivors’ psychological characteristics were the strongest indicators of unmet need, particularly caseness for anxious preoccupation coping which was associated (OR = 2.2-5.9) with unmet need for help across all domains. Conclusions Unmet supportive care needs are prevalent among a subgroup of survivors transitioning from active treatment to survivorship, although lower than previously reported. In addition to coping support, valuable insight about how to prevent or address survivors’ unmet needs could be gained by examining the substantial proportion of survivors who report no unmet needs.

Background: There is increasing demand for primary care practitioners to play a key role in palliative care delivery. Given this, it is important to understand their perceptions of the barriers and enablers to optimal palliative care, and how commonly these are experienced. Aim: To explore the type and prevalence of barriers and enablers to palliative care provision reported by primary care practitioners. Design: A systematic review of quantitative data-based articles was conducted. Data sources: Medline, Embase and PsychINFO databases were searched for articles published between January 2007 and March 2019. Data synthesis: Abstracts were assessed against the eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 80 articles were blind coded by a second author. Data were extracted from eligible full-texts by one author and checked by a second. Given the heterogeneity in the included studies' methods and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common barriers related to bureaucratic procedures, communication between healthcare professionals, primary care practitioners' personal commitments, and their skills or confidence. The most common enablers related to education, nurses and trained respite staff to assist with care delivery, better communication between professionals, and templates to facilitate referral to out-of-hours services. Conclusion: A holistic approach addressing the range of barriers reported in this review is needed to support primary care providers to deliver palliative care. This includes better training and addressing barriers related to the interface between healthcare services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: GPs can play a central role in palliative care delivery. However, little is known about their views on what constitutes best practice care at the end of life. Aim: To explore, in a sample of Australian GPs, their perceptions of best practice palliative care and their ideal role in its delivery. Design & setting: A qualitative interview study of 25 GPs practising in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan locations in New South Wales, Australia. Method: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants had a mean age of 51 years, and had practised between 3 and 38 years (mean 19 years). Best practice palliative care was perceived to be proactive and responsive to a wide range of patient and family needs. Many participants indicated a need for relational continuity, which involves GPs establishing a care pathway from diagnosis to palliation, coordinating care across the pathway, and collaborating with other healthcare providers. A number of participants perceived palliative care as a natural extension of primary care and indicated that best practice palliative care mainly requires experiential knowledge and good communication skills, rather than specialised medical knowledge. Participants listed a number of communication strategies to offer patients and their families choice and ongoing negotiation about the recommended treatments. Conclusion: This study provides novel in-depth insights into GPs' perceptions of best practice palliative care. Future research should further investigate the identified features of care, and whether they can maximise the outcomes of patients and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is poor uptake of psychosocial interventions offered to people with cancer who record high scores on distress screening scales. Intervention uptake may be influenced by a mismatch between consumer (bottom-up) and professional (top-down) paradigms of wellbeing. The current research aims to compare cancer survivors’ ‘self-judgements’ about their levels of anxiety, depression and stress, to classifications derived via a professional-driven measure, the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Methods: A cross-sectional study was undertaken with haematological cancer survivors recruited from three population-based cancer registries in Australia. Consenting participants were mailed a questionnaire package; and non-responders received a second questionnaire package after 3-weeks and a reminder call after 6-weeks. The consumer-driven perspective was assessed via three separate single items asking survivors to self-classify their levels of anxiety, depression and stress over the past week on a scale from ‘normal’ to ‘extremely severe’. The professional-driven classification was assessed via the DASS-21. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between consumer- and professional-driven measures. Results: Of 2,971 eligible haematological cancer survivors, 1,239 (42%) provided written consent and were mailed a questionnaire package. Of these, 984 (79%) returned a completed questionnaire. The simple kappa for agreement between the DASS-21 and self-classified measures for anxiety was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.54, p<0.0001). The weighted kappa for agreement between the DASS-21 and self-classified measures of depression was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.67, p<0.0001) and for measures of stress was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.59, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Moderate agreement between self-classification and professional-driven assessments was found. The value of screening is predicated on the assumption that those with identified needs will be offered and take up services that will benefit them. Our results suggest that to improve the utility of distress screening it may be important to include assessment of survivor views about their symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

GPs were not informed about the incentive trial until a thank-you letter was posted at the conclusion of the survey; all participating GPs then received $20 gift vouchers. Keywords: Randomized controlled trial as topic; General practice; Research design EN Randomized controlled trial as topic General practice Research design 585 586 2 06/21/22 20220615 NES 220615 General practitioners view health and medical research positively, but their participation in postal surveys is typically low.1 Poor response rates reduce the sample size and consequently the generalisability of survey results. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Population-based registries are increasingly used to recruit patient samples for research, however, they have several limitations including low consent and participation rates, and potential selection bias. To improve access to samples for research, the utility of a new model of recruitment termed the 'Consumer Register', that allows for direct patient recruitment from hospitals, was examined. This paper reports: (i) consent rates onto the register; (ii) preferred methods and frequency of contact; and (iii) the feasibility of establishing the register, including: (a) cost per person recruited to the register; (b) the differential cost and consent rates of volunteer versus paid data collectors; and (c) participant completion rates. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in five outpatient clinics in Australia. Patients were approached by volunteers or paid data collectors and asked to complete a touch-screen electronic survey. Consenting individuals were asked to indicate their willingness and preferences for enrolment onto a research register. Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient preferences and linear regression used to model the success of volunteer versus paid data collectors. The opportunity and financial costs of establishing the register were calculated. Results: A total of 1947 patients (80.6 %) consented to complete the survey, of which, 1486 (76.3 %) completed the questionnaire. Of the completers, the majority (69.4 %, or 1032 participants) were willing to be listed on the register and preferred to be contacted by email (50.3 %). Almost 39 % of completers were willing to be contacted three or more times in a 12 month period. The annual opportunity cost of resources consumed by the register was valued at $37,187, giving an opportunity cost per person recruited to the register of $36. After amortising fixed costs, the annual financial outlay was $23,004 or $22 per person recruited to the register. Use of volunteer data collectors contributed to an annual saving of $14,183, however paid data collectors achieved significantly higher consent rates. Successful enrolment onto the register was completed for 42 % of the sample. Conclusions: A Consumer Register is a promising and feasible alternative to population-based registries, with the majority of participants willing to be contacted multiple times via low-resource methods such as email. There is an effectiveness/cost trade off in the use of paid versus volunteer data collectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified patient-centeredness as crucial to quality health care. The IOM endorsed six patient-centeredness dimensions that stipulated that care must be: respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; coordinated and integrated; provide information, communication, and education; ensure physical comfort; provide emotional support; and involve family and friends. Patient-reported measures examine the patient's perspective and are essential to the accurate assessment of patient-centered care. This article's objectives are to: 1) use the six IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimensions as a framework to outline why patient-reported measures are crucial to the reliable measurement of patient-centered care; and 2) to identify existing patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centered care dimension. Methods: For each IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimension, the published literature was searched to highlight the essential role of patients in assessing patient-centered care and informing quality improvement efforts. Existing literature was also searched to identify examples of patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centeredness dimension. Conclusion: Patient-reported measures are arguably the best way to measure patient-centeredness. For instance, patients are best positioned to determine whether care aligns with patient values, preferences, and needs and the Measure of Patient Preferences is an example of a patient-reported measure that does so. Furthermore, only the patient knows whether they received the level of information desired, and if information was understood and can be recalled. Patient-reported measures that examine information provision include the Lung Information Needs Questionnaire and the EORTC QLQ-INFO25. In relation to physical comfort, only patients can report the severity of physical symptoms and whether medications provide adequate relief. Patient-reported measures that investigate physical comfort include the Pain Care Quality Survey and the Brief Pain Inventory. Using patient-reported measures to regularly measure patient-centered care is critical to identifying areas of health care where improvements are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: Little is known about the presentation of multiple concurrent symptoms (symptom clusters) in long-term cancer survivors, with few studies adequately powered to compare quality of life (QoL) and symptom presentation by cancer type. Objectives: This research aimed to 1) assess patient-reported QoL and 2) identify clusters of cancer-related physical symptoms by cancer type among long-term breast, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma cancer survivors. Methods: A population-based cross-sectional sample of 863 adult cancer survivors five to six years post-diagnosis completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), assessing global QoL and frequency of presentation of cancer-related physical symptoms. Results: Long-term survivors reported higher levels of global QoL than 1) the general population (age-adjusted mean=79.4 vs. 71.1, small clinical difference) and 2) cancer patients early in the care trajectory (age-adjusted mean=77.1 vs. 61.3, moderate clinical difference). The majority (71%) did not report any cancer-related physical symptoms; 18% reported multiple (two or more) symptoms in the past month. Factor analysis found that cognitive functioning, fatigue, insomnia, pain, dyspnea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting formed a cluster (α =0.48). No symptom clusters were identified that were specific to just one cancer type. However, individual symptoms (including diarrhea, pain, constipation, and insomnia) modestly discriminated between cancer types. Conclusion: Contrary to expectations, no symptom clusters specific to one type of cancer were identified and survivors reported few cancer-related symptoms and high QoL. These results convey a strong “good news” message, providing health professionals with a sound foundation for making encouraging predictions about their patients’ long-term physical recovery after cancer. Cancer patients also will welcome the news that only a minority of five-year survivors experience long-term and late effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: Coping strategies mediate the relationship between challenging situations and their impact on psychosocial outcomes. Many long-term cancer survivors continue to face a range of challenges in their daily lives, yet little is known about how this population copes. The study explored the prevalence and predictors of cancer-specific coping strategies among a heterogeneous sample of long-term cancer survivors. Methods: A population-based cross-sectional sample of 863 adult cancer survivors 5-6 years post-diagnosis completed a pen-and-paper survey. Cancer-specific coping was assessed via the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (mini-MAC) Scale. Potential predictor variables included patient, disease and treatment characteristics and social support. Results: The most commonly used coping strategies were fatalism and fighting spirit. Of those survivors that used any of the coping strategies assessed, 53% used at least two strategies. Maladaptive coping was commonly predicted by low social support (OR=1.77 to 2.49) and being a disability pensioner, whereas having ever received chemotherapy widely predicted greater use of all types of coping. A weekly household income of over $1000 a week uniquely predicted not using any mini-MAC coping strategies. Conclusions: Survivors continue to engage in cancer-specific coping strategies many years after diagnosis, albeit to a lesser extent than recent survivor populations. A number of predictors were identified that can alert health workers to long-term survivors at increased risk of maladaptive coping. Given that low social support consistently predicted maladaptive coping responses, interventions aimed at promoting positive coping responses should include strategies to increase access to social support. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a large-scale, population-based study in Australia which assessed the prevalence and predictors of anxiety and depression among a heterogenous sample of long-term adult cancer survivors. It outlines the instruments utilized in the study, including Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (mini-MAC). It has found that levels of anxiety and depression were low. It has revealed that most survivors had adjusted well to their cancer treatment.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Anxiety and depression among long-term survivors of cancer in Australia: results of a population-based survey," by A. W. Boyes et al, published in a 2009 supplementary issue.

Objectives: The study examined: 1) the proportion of patients who received their preferred level of information about life expectancy; and 2) sociodemographic, clinical and psychological factors associated with patients' perceptions of whether they received too little, too much, or the right amount of information about life expectancy.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Setting: Eleven large Australian medical oncology treatment centres.Participants: A total of 1431 medical oncology outpatients participated (81% consent rate). Eligible patients were approached between September 2012 and May 2014.Main Outcome Measures: Patients indicated whether the information about life expectancy they received aligned with their preferences.Results: Almost one in four patients (24%) received too little information, 4% received too much, and 50% received all the information they wanted; 22% of patients neither wanted nor received information about life expectancy. Patients were more likely to receive too little information if they were not in remission (odds ratio [OR], 1.77), did not know their cancer stage at diagnosis (OR, 3.64), or were anxious (OR, 1.48) or depressed (OR, 1.48). Patients had greater odds of receiving too much information if they were younger (OR, 1.45), had more advanced cancer (OR, 2.01) or did not know their cancer stage at diagnosis (OR, 4.42).Conclusions: That fact that 28% of cancer patients did not receive their desired level of information about life expectancy highlights the difficulties associated with discussing this sensitive topic. To ensure that life expectancy discussions correspond with patient preferences, clinicians should routinely ask patients whether they want to know this information, in what format, and at which level of detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Surgery is the most common treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) and can cause relative long average length of stay (LOS) and high risks of unplanned readmissions and complications. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways can reduce the LOS and postsurgical complications. Digital health interventions provide a flexible and low-cost way of supporting patients to achieve this. This protocol describes a trial aiming to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverEsupport digital health intervention in decreasing the hospital LOS in patients undergoing CRC surgery., Methods and Analysis: The two-arm randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverEsupport digital health intervention compared with usual care (control) in patients with CRC. The intervention consists of a website and a series of automatic prompts and alerts to support patients to adhere to the patient-led ERAS recommendations. The primary trial outcome is the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes include days alive and out of hospital; emergency department presentations; quality of life; patient knowledge and behaviours related to the ERAS recommendations; health service utilisation; and intervention acceptability and use., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial has been approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00869) and the University of Newcastle Ethics Committee (H-2015-0364). Trial findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. If the intervention is effective, the research team will facilitate its adoption within the Local Health District for widespread adaptation and implementation., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12621001533886., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)