Search

Simple Summary: The initiative outlined in this paper emphasises the importance of a collaborative strategy in managing tongue cancer, involving a broad spectrum of healthcare professionals. This multidisciplinary method integrates the expertise of nurses, allied health workers, and various medical specialists to enhance diagnosis, treatment, and recovery processes for patients. By developing and examining a series of online lectures, this study highlights the critical roles played by each discipline in the comprehensive care pathway, from prevention and early detection to the management of advanced stages of the disease. This approach aims not only to address the clinical aspects of tongue cancer but also to support the overall well-being of patients, showcasing the benefits of teamwork in healthcare settings for improving patient outcomes. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of tongue cancer is vital for achieving optimal patient outcomes. Nursing and allied health professionals play essential roles within the team. We developed symposia comprising a series of online lectures offering a detailed perspective on the role each discipline and consumer perspective has in the management of patients with tongue cancer. The topics, including epidemiology and prevention, diagnosis, treatment planning, surgery, adjuvant care, and the management of recurrent or metastatic disease, were thoroughly examined. The symposia highlighted the significance of fostering collaboration and continuous learning through a multidisciplinary approach. This initiative should be relevant to healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers striving to enhance patient outcomes in tongue cancer care through innovative collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer patients undergoing major interventions face numerous challenges, including the adverse effects of cancer and the side effects of treatment. Cancer rehabilitation is vital in ensuring cancer patients have the support they need to maximise treatment outcomes and minimise treatment-related side effects and symptoms. The Active Together service is a multi-modal rehabilitation service designed to address critical support gaps for cancer patients. The service is located and provided in Sheffield, UK, an area with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than the national average. The service aligns with local and regional cancer care objectives and aims to improve the clinical and quality-of-life outcomes of cancer patients by using lifestyle behaviour-change techniques to address their physical, nutritional, and psychological needs. This paper describes the design and initial implementation of the Active Together service, highlighting its potential to support and benefit cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Rehabilitation can positively affect quality of life, functional status, and physiological status for patients with head and neck or lung cancer. However, barriers and facilitators regarding access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation have not been outlined in the literature either from a healthcare professional or from a structural perspective. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to identify and map barriers and facilitators from structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives in relation to access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation for patients with head and neck or lung cancer. Materials and methods: Two systematic searches were conducted in five databases mapping peer-reviewed research literature. Results: In total, 17 studies of 3918 potential sources were included. Seven themes were identified. Four themes concerned access: Understanding Patients' Resources; Collaboration Determining Access; Education, Knowledge, and Evidence Impact Access to Rehabilitation; and Resources Affecting Availability to Rehabilitation Services. Two themes concerned referral: Referral Criteria; and Elements Affecting Referral Pathway. One theme concerned participation: Factors Influencing Participation. Conclusion: From structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives, barriers and facilitators impact access, referral and participation in rehabilitation. However, the findings on facilitators were limited; only one theme addressed participation and two findings concerned patients with low socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Healthcare professionals should be mindful that a diverse array of barriers and facilitators may impact the rehabilitation pathway for patients with head, neck, and lung cancer. Engagement by healthcare professionals and structural initiatives are needed to ensure comprehensive access to information concerning rehabilitation options. Local guidelines should be developed to prescribe methods for informing and guiding patients towards suitable rehabilitation options. It is important that healthcare professionals take the individual patient's resources into account when navigating aspects of access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores post-treatment experiences of women who have had radiotherapy for gynaecological cancer. Drawing on data from a project which explored post-treatment wellbeing, conceptual metaphors of ghosts/haunting are used to engage with enduring legacies of cancer and 'neglected matters' in post-treatment trajectories. Current arrangements of care contribute to the idea that participants are 'out of the other side of cancer' once active treatment completes. Despite broader ambitions for holistic cancer rehabilitation, fragilities of body and mind persist, even when the outward representation is one of health, of looking well, of moving on. We show how neglected matters of cancer (visceral late effects, psychological suffering and lives not lived) are part of living with and beyond cancer. These 'ghosts' manifest in chronic states of unsettledness that are temporarily relieved by individualised 'fixes', such as mobilisation of 'mind over matter' discourse and mindfulness. This discourse and its associated tools are a powerful yet impoverished framing of approaches to living with and beyond cancer. We argue for the need to attend to 'neglected matters' of post-treatment trajectories differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being used frequently in clinical practice. PROs often serve several purposes, such as increasing patient involvement, assessing health status, and monitoring and improving the quality-of-care at an aggregated level. However, the lack of representative PRO-data may have implications for all these purposes. This study aims to assess the association of non-administration of (not sending an electronic invite to PRO) and non-response to (not responding to PRO) electronically administered PROs with social inequality in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, it examines whether the workflows surrounding PRO have an impact on non-administration and non-response. Methods: This is a cross sectional study using routinely collected data from electronic health records and registers including cancer survivors (CSs) over 18 years booked for an initial consultation in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting using PROs for systematic health status assessment. During the study period two different PRO platforms were used, each associated with different workflows. Non-administration and non-response rates were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics for each PRO platform. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results: In total, 1868 (platform 1) and 1446 (platform 2) CSCSs were booked for an initial consultation. Of these, 233 (12.5%) (platform 1) and 283 (19.6%) (platform 2) were not sent a PRO (non-administration). Among those who received a PRO, 157 (9.6%) on platform 1 and 140 (12.0%) on platform 2 did not respond (non-response). Non-administration of and non-response to PROs were significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, the workflows surrounding PROs seem to have an impact on non-inclusion in and non-response to PROs. Conclusions: Non-administration of and non-response to PROs in clinical practice is associated with determinants of social inequality. Clinical workflows and the PRO platforms used may potentially worsen this inequality. It is important to consider these implications when using PROs at both the individual and aggregated levels. A key aspect of implementing PROs in clinical practice is the ongoing focus on representativeness, including a focus on monitoring PRO administration and response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative care schemes, which include pain management, symptom control, psychosocial support and rehabilitation, aim to boost patients' quality of life, ease the burden and anxiety of informal caregivers, and ultimately provide a comprehensive approach to enhance well-being during this challenging and sensitive period. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a comprehensive rehabilitation palliative care program on the quality of life of patients with terminal cancer and their informal caregivers. Methods: This quasi-experimental study, conducted from August 2023 to January 2024 at outpatient clinics affiliated with the Oncology Center at Mansoura University, Egypt, focused on cancer patients and their caregivers in the palliative care department. Employing pre- and post-test phases, data were gathered using a questionnaire, EORTC QLQ C30, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Short Form Health Survey, Caregiver Burden Inventory, and Beck Anxiety Inventory. The investigation evaluated a 16-week rehabilitation program comprising exercise, psychoeducation, individual counselling, and spiritual support. Exercises, led by a physiotherapist, targeted fatigue and stress through tailored aerobic and resistance training. Psychoeducation sessions aimed to bolster coping abilities, covering fatigue management and nutrition. Trained counsellors addressed spiritual and existential concerns. Personal advisory sessions were available for individual support. Caregivers received education on rehabilitation and palliative care protocols, ensuring comprehensive patient care. Results: The mean age for cancer patients was 65.79 ± 13.85. In contrast, the mean age for primary carers was 42.05 ± 11.15. The QOL for cancer patients during the pre-test phase was 77.8 ± 7.16 and rose to 87.34 ± 14.56 during the post-test phase. Additionally, the total anxiety level of patients before the rehabilitation palliative care program was conducted was 15.45 ± 3.05 compared to 6.12 ± 3.21 after the post test phase. Furthermore, the total depression levels of the patients during the pre-test phase were 20.89 ± 9.21. However, after implementing the rehabilitation palliative care program, it decreased to 15.5 ± 6.86. In regards to the total quality of life of informal caregivers, it was measured at 67.28 ± 32.09 before conducting the program. Nevertheless, it increased to 25.95 ± 40.29 after conducting it. Additionally, the total Caregiver Burden Inventory before implementing the program was 37.45 ± 25.7, and it decreased to 29.36 ± 16.4 after conducting it. Additionally, the total score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory decreased from 45.7 ± 4.3 during the initial testing phase to 17.35 ± 23.67. Conclusion: The program for rehabilitation palliative care successfully achieved its goals by enhancing the overall quality of life for cancer patients and their caregivers. Additionally, it reduced the anxiety and depression levels among the patients, as well as the anxiety and caregiver burden among the caregivers. Continue research into the effectiveness of rehabilitation palliative care programs to identify best practices, improve existing programs, and expand access to these services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal is the property of Pappin Communications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the current literature on wearable technologies in oncology patients for the purpose of prognostication, treatment monitoring, and rehabilitation planning. Methods A search was conducted in Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, up until February 2022. Articles were included if they reported on consumer grade and/or non-commercial wearable devices in the setting of either prognostication, treatment monitoring or rehabilitation. Results We found 199 studies reporting on 18 513 patients suitable for inclusion. One hundred and eleven studies used wearable device data primarily for the purposes of rehabilitation, 68 for treatment monitoring, and 20 for prognostication. The most commonly-reported brands of wearable devices were ActiGraph (71 studies; 36%), Fitbit (37 studies; 19%), Garmin (13 studies; 7%), and ActivPAL (11 studies; 6%). Daily minutes of physical activity were measured in 121 studies (61%), and daily step counts were measured in 93 studies (47%). Adherence was reported in 86 studies, and ranged from 40% to 100%; of these, 63 (74%) reported adherence in excess of 80%. Conclusion Wearable devices may provide valuable data for the purposes of treatment monitoring, prognostication, and rehabilitation. Future studies should investigate live-time monitoring of collected data, which may facilitate directed interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]