Search

Objective: To explore the experiences of cancer caregivers who live in rural Australia and travel to a metropolitan cancer health service to access cancer treatment. Design: A qualitative study using semistructured, audiorecorded interviews conducted between December 2017 and July 2018 with caregivers and social workers. Thematic analysis using interpretative descriptive techniques performed on textual interview data within a critical realist paradigm to develop understanding of rural caregivers' lived experiences. Setting: Participants were from rural areas attending a metropolitan cancer centre in Australia and social workers. Participants: 21 caregivers (16 female) of people with cancer living in rural Australia within a minimum distance of 100 km from the metropolitan cancer centre where they access treatment, and five social workers employed at a metropolitan cancer service with experience of working with rural patients and caregivers. Results: Thematic analysis developed two overarching themes: theme 1: caregiving in the rural setting describes the unique circumstance in which caregiving for a person with cancer takes place in the rural setting at considerable distance from the cancer service where the person receives treatment. This is explored in three categories: 'Rural community and culture', 'Life adjustments' and 'Available supports'. Theme 2: accessing metropolitan cancer services captures the multiplicity of tasks and challenges involved in organising and coordinating the journey to access cancer treatment in a metropolitan hospital, which is presented in the following categories: 'Travel', 'Accommodation' and 'Health system navigation'. Conclusions: Caregivers who live in rural areas face significant challenges when confronting geographic isolation between their rural home environment and the metropolitan setting, where the patient accessed cancer treatment. There is a need for healthcare services to identify this group to develop feasible and sustainable ways to provide interventions that have the best chance of assisting rural caregivers in supporting the patient while maintaining their own health and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Cancer is often considered a chronic disease, and most people with cancer have a caregiver, often a family member or friend who provides a significant amount of care during the illness trajectory. Caregivers are frequently in need of support, and a range of interventions have been trialled to improve outcomes. Consensus for optimal ways to support caregivers is not known. The aim of this protocol paper is to describe procedures for a modified Delphi study to explore expert consensus about important factors when developing caregiver interventions. Methods and analysis Online modified Delphi methodology will be used to establish consensus for important caregiver intervention factors incorporating the Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework. Round 1 will comprise a free-text questionnaire and invite the panel to contribute factors they deem important in the development and evaluation of caregiver interventions. Round 2 is designed to determine preliminary consensus of the importance of factors generated in round 1. The panel will be asked to rate each factor using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The option for panellists to state reasoning for their rating will be provided. Descriptive statistics (median scores and IQR) will be calculated to determine each item's relative importance. Levels of consensus will be assessed based on a predefined consensus rating matrix. In round 3, factors will be recirculated including aggregate group responses (statistics and comment summaries) and panellists' own round 2 scores. Panellists will be invited to reconsider their judgements and resubmit ratings using the same rating system as in round 2. This will result in priority lists based on the panel's total rating scores. Ethics and dissemination Ethics for this study has been gained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group. It is anticipated that the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To develop recommendations regarding opportunities and barriers for nature-based care in oncology contexts using a structured knowledge generation process involving relevant healthcare and design experts. Design Four-round modified electronic Delphi study. Oncology patients' nature-based recommendations, uncovered in preceding qualitative investigation, were included in the first round for the expert participants' consideration. Key items (opportunities and barriers) were developed using data aggregation and synthesis, followed by item prioritisation and 10-point Likert scale ranking (1=not important, 10=very important). Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess items of highest importance representing expert recommendations. Context Online Delphi process constituting an electronic international survey. Participants A purposive sample of 200 potential panellists (recruitment target n=40) comprising healthcare practitioners, managers, designers, architects and researchers were invited to participate; experts were identified via research networks, snowballing and systematic literature review. Results 38 experts across seven countries (Australia, USA, UK, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark and Sweden) returned questionnaire 1, which determined consent and acceptance for participation. Initial response rate was 19%, and subsequent response rates were 84%, 82% and 84% for rounds 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The Delphi panel developed recommendations consisting of 10 opportunities and 10 barriers. The following opportunities were rated to be of highest importance: window views from clinical areas onto nature; outdoor settings, gardens and courtyards with easy and effortless access; and naturebased physical exercise adapted to patient requirements. Highest-rated barriers for nature-based oncology care included lack of knowledge and awareness about benefits of nature engagement and inaccessibility, not considering access requirements for the very sick and frail. Conclusions Experts suggested and agreed on a set of recommendations, which represent critical considerations for the safe adoption of nature-based oncology opportunities. These findings fill a gap in understanding about helpful nature-based oncology care and may translate into oncology design and innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Opportunities to engage with nature have shown relevance in experiences of health and recovery of patients with cancer and are attracting interest in cancer care practice and design. Such healthcare innovations can widen the horizon of possible supportive care solutions but require deliberate and rigorous investigation to ensure responsible action is taken and wastage avoided. This protocol outlines a study designed to solicit knowledge from relevant experts drawn from a range of healthcare practitioners, management representatives, designers and researchers to explore levels of opinion consensus for determining opportunities for, and barriers to, providing helpful nature engagement in cancer care settings. Methods and analysis: A 4-round modified electronic Delphi methodology will be used to conduct a structured, iterative feedback process for querying and synthesising expert opinion. Round 1 administers an open-ended questionnaire to a panel of selected, relevant experts who will consider the own recommendations of patients with cancer for nature engagement (drawn from a preceding investigation) before contributing salient issues (items) with relevance to the topic. Round 2 circulates anonymised summaries of responses back to the experts who verify and, if they wish, reconsider their own responses. Rounds 3 and 4 determine and rank experts' top 10 items using a 10-point Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics (median and mean scores) will be calculated to indicate the items' relative importance. Levels of consensus will be explored with consensus defined as 75% agreement. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Institution's Human Research Ethics Committee (blinded for review). It is anticipated that the results will be published in peerreviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]