Search

Priorities for cancer caregiver intervention research: A three-round modified Delphi study to inform priorities for participants, interventions, outcomes, and study design characteristics Keywords: cancer; caregiver; carer; Delphi; experts EN cancer caregiver carer Delphi experts 2091 2096 6 01/07/21 20201201 NES 201201 Key Points A three-round modified Delphi study, guided by the PICO Framework, was conducted to ascertain cancer caregiver priorities in the areas of participants, interventions, outcomes, and study designs. A systematic review has shown these are appropriate and acceptable for caregivers,17 however, other studies suggest that interest in such interventions can vary.18 The need for sustainable interventions has been acknowledged in psycho-oncology.19-21 There are some cancer caregiver interventions that are implemented and in practice,22 and further research should consider sustainability during the early stages of intervention development. CONCLUSIONS Cancer caregiver intervention priorities include people who are from minority groups or are disadvantaged, those who are isolated and those identified as needing support; interventions that are sustainable and tailored; outcomes that are important to caregivers and assess the long-term impact of interventions. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: Access to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital. Results: In all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (± s.d.) age 59 ± 15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n = 271; 80%). Conclusion: This study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product. What is known about the topic?: Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes. What does this paper add?: In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed. What are the implications for practitioners?: Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Australian Social Work is the property of Routledge 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.)

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]

Background: Debate about appropriate and ethically acceptable end-of-life choices is ongoing, which includes discussion about the legalization of voluntary assisted dying. Given health professionals' role in caring for patients at the end life, their stance towards assisting a person with dying can have implications for policy development and implementation in jurisdictions where law changes are being considered. Aim: To explore end-of-life care professionals' attitudes towards voluntary assisted dying 6 months prior to vote on legalization. Design: Qualitative study using textual data collected through semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling strategy used to collect a broad representation of perspectives. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to qualitative descriptive analysis techniques. Participants: A total of 16 health professionals with experience in caring for people with life-limiting illness. Results: Participants reported two overarching positions grounded in differing moral philosophies with compelling arguments both for and against legalization of voluntary assisted dying. A third and common line of argument emerged from areas of shared concern and uncertainty about the practical consequences of introducing voluntary assisted dying. While a diversity of opinion was evident, all participants advocated for more public education and funding into end-of-life care services to make high-quality care equitable and widely available. Conclusion: Common dedication to reducing suffering and facilitating good dying experiences exists among experts despite their divergent views on voluntary assisted dying. Ongoing engagement with stakeholders is needed for practical resolution in the interest of developing health policy for best patient care. [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]

Objectives: To explore cancer patients’ recommendations for nature engagement based on their subjective nature experiences and observations in the cancer setting. The rationale was to gain practical insight for delineating relevant and translatable nature-based care and design opportunities in oncology contexts. Background: Innovative cancer care services are needed to respond to growing demand and shifting healthcare needs. Engagement with nature has shown multiple health benefits and presents a promising opportunity for application in healthcare to improve outcomes. Method: Qualitative research design using content analysis was used. Eligible adults with any cancer diagnosis participated in semistructured and audio-recorded interviews. Transcribed textual data included responses to two open-ended questions querying about participants’ recommendations related to nature-based opportunities in the cancer setting. Deductive analysis used three predetermined categories: “recommendation: features,” “recommendation: functions,” and “cautions.” Results: Twenty patients with cancer (nine female) participated. Broad recommendations incorporated (1) using nature for vital sensory stimulation and engagement, (2) using nature for personal space and freedom to enable private and social exploration, (3) using views to nature for distraction and comfort, and (4) accessing nature for physical activity and movement. Three critical factors were determined for avoiding adverse experiences: determining appropriate expenditure and resourcing, selection of appropriate nature-based design materials, and exercising caution around demanding nature engagement and harsh weather conditions. Conclusions: Cancer patients’ recommendations reveal the importance of engaging with nature in their experiences of health and recovery. The findings can inform planning appropriate and safe integration of beneficial nature engagement in cancer settings and support services. [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]

Background: A systematic review and meta-synthesis was conducted to identify, compare and synthesize the published qualitative literature contributing to our understanding of the role of nature in cancer patients' lives.Method: An electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Databases was conducted to identify qualitative studies focused on cancer patients' nature experiences published between January 1985 and May 2015. Records were assessed according to pre-defined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on study characteristics and evaluated using the COREQ guidelines for comprehensive quality reporting. Qualitative data from 'results' and 'findings' sections were entered into data management software NVivo in order to identify recurring themes and facilitate interpretation across studies.Results: From 11 eligible publications, seven inter-related core themes with descriptive themes were identified as follows: connecting with what is valued; being elsewhere, seeing and feeling differently; exploration, inner and outer excursions; home and safe; symbolism, understanding and communicating differently; benefitting from old and new physical activities; and, enriching aesthetic experiences.Conclusions: Nature provides patients with unburdened physical and psychic space invested with personal significance. Findings propose nature's role as a "secure base" offering patients a familiar and nurturing context from which new perspectives can emerge and caring connections can be made with themselves, others, the past, and the future. As such, nature supported patients to navigate the clinical and personal consequences of cancer. Comprehensive representation of cancer patients' nature experiences identified patient values and care opportunities embedded in clinical and personal environments, which may be considered for future research and care service development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate patient, staff, and carer responses to an environmental intervention in an oncology clinic waiting room and evaluate the acceptability of artificial plant materials. Design Postintervention: Cross-sectional survey study. Setting: Oncology outpatient clinic waiting room located in a metropolitan comprehensive cancer center in Australia. Main Outcome Measure: Observer ratings of perceived qualities and effects of lifelike (fake) plants while spending time in the waiting room. Participants: Convenience sample (N = 143) consisted of 73 cancer patients, 13 staff, 52 carers, and 5 "others" aged between 24 and 89 years (M = 56, SD = 14.5). Intervention: Artificial plant arrangements, hanging installations, two movable green walls, and one rock garden on wheels placed throughout the outpatients' clinic waiting room. Results: Eighty-one percent (115/142) of respondents noticed the green features when first entering the waiting room and 67% (90/134) noticed they were artificial. Eighty-one percent (115/142) indicated "like/like a lot" when reporting their first reaction to the green features. Forty-eight percent (68/143) were positively affected and 23% (33/143) were very positively affected. Eighty-one percent (110/135) agreed/strongly agreed that "The greenery brightens the waiting room," 62% (80/130) agreed/strongly agreed that they "prefer living plants," and 76% (101/133) agreed/strongly agreed that "'lifelike' plants are better than no plants." Comments included mostly positive appraisals and occasional adverse reactions to artificial plants. No significant differences were found between patients', staff, and carers' reactions. Conclusions: The environmental intervention positively impacted patients', staff, and carers' perceptions of the oncology waiting room environment. Patients, staff, and carers mostly accepted artificial plants as an alternative design solution to real plants. [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]

ObjectivesAccess to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital.ResultsIn all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (±s.d.) age 59±15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n =271; 80%).ConclusionThis study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product.What is known about the topic?Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes.What does this paper add?In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed.What are the implications for practitioners?Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]