Search

Objective: To explore adolescents' self-reported reasons for sun protection, as adolescents as a group continue to have poor sun protection practices. Methods: Seventeen age- and gender-segregated focus groups were conducted in Australian high schools. Results: Reasons for using sun protection included personal comfort, appearance, policies, fear of skin cancer, expectations of authority figures, peer actions, and habit. Reasons for not using sun protection included desire for a tan, inconvenience, low perceived risk, and fashion. Age and gender effects were found. Conclusions: Avenues for intervention with adolescents include authority figures, peer advocacy, the fashion industry, and improved sun protection products.

Background: Despite common global usage, fluoropyrimidine (FP; 5‐flurouracil and capecitabine)‐related chemotherapy toxicity is poorly reported in the literature, with serious toxicity ranging from 10% to 40% and early toxicity (within 60 days of exposure) quoted at 14%. Data reflecting the incidence of Grades 3–5 FP‐related toxicity in Australian cancer patients is scant, despite the significant impact of toxicity on patients (hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and even death). Aims: This retrospective audit evaluated Grades 3–5 toxicities in a contemporaneous cohort of 500 patients receiving FP chemotherapies within the Hunter‐New England Local Health District from June 2020 to June 2022. Data were extracted from public hospital records and oncology‐specific e‐records to determine rates of toxicity and associated hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and deaths that occurred within 60 days of first exposure to FP chemotherapy‐containing regimens. Results: One hundred and fifty incidents of Grades 3–4 toxicity in the first 60 days led to 87 patients presenting to hospital (87/500, 17.4%). The most common serious toxicities were diarrhoea (39.3%), nausea and vomiting (22.7%) and febrile neutropaenia (10%). Four patients were admitted to the ICU, and four patients died of toxicity. Within the first 60 days, 22.2% of patients required treatment delays, 21.4% required dose reductions, and 7.8% of patients ceased treatment because of toxicities. Discussion and Conclusion: Our experience reflects international reports and is likely generalisable to the Australian population. These data are a basis to understand the potential benefits of precision medicine strategies such as pharmacogenomic screening to improve patient tolerability and the cost‐effectiveness of FP chemotherapy prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Pharmacogenomics; Cancer; Genetic testing; Prescribing EN Pharmacogenomics Cancer Genetic testing Prescribing 510 513 4 11/14/22 20221115 NES 221115 Australia should develop a sustainable evidence-based pharmacogenomic screening program, with I DPYD i genotyping at the forefront Pharmacogenomics is the genomic profiling of patients for genetic variants that clinically modify the tolerability and desired effect of specific medications. The table includes genes implicated in both drug metabolism and hypersensitivity reactions where known gene-drug pairs are identified and dose adjustment guidelines are available. Testing for genomic variants implicated in the tolerability of select medications can help us to predict a patient's metabolic response and adjust medications accordingly, allowing for individualised prescribing.3,7 Not all gene-drug pairs carry sufficient evidence to warrant adjustments in clinical prescribing. Some genetic variants, such as those occurring in the cytochrome P450 ( I CYP) i genes, have an impact on multiple medications across different drug classes. [Extracted from the article]

Smoking cessation represents an untapped resource for cancer therapy. Many people who smoke and have cancer (tobacco-related or otherwise) struggle to quit and as a result, jeopardise response to treatment, recovery after surgery and long-term survival. Many health care practitioners working in cancer medicine feel undertrained, unprepared and unsupported to provide effective smoking cessation therapy. Many institutions and healthcare systems do provide smoking cessation programs, guidelines and referral pathways for cancer patients, but these may be unevenly applied. The growing body of evidence, from both retrospective and prospective clinical studies, confirms the benefit of smoking cessation and will provide much needed evidence for the best and most effective interventions in cancer clinics. In addition to reducing demand, helping cancer patients quit and treating addiction, a firm commitment to developing smoke free societies may transform cancer medicine in the future. While the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) has dominated global tobacco control for the last two decades, many jurisdictions are starting to develop plans to make their communities tobacco free, to introduce the tobacco endgame. Characterised by downward pressure on tobacco supply, limited sales, limited access and denormalization of smoking, these policies may radically change the milieu in which people with cancer receive treatment, in which health care practitioners refine skills and which may ultimately foster dramatic improvements in cancer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) are a critical element of quality care for people diagnosed with cancer. The MDM Chairperson plays a significant role in facilitating these meetings, which are often time-poor environments for clinical decision making. This study examines the perceptions of MDM Chairpersons including their role and the factors that determine the quality of a Chair, as well as the Chairperson's perception of the value of personally attending meetings. Methods: This qualitative study used telephone interviews to explore the experiences of MDM Chairpersons from metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Using a state-wide register, 43 clinicians who chaired lung, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and breast cancer meetings were approached to participate. Thematic data analysis was used to develop and organise themes. Results: Themes from the 16 interviews identified the perceived need for an expert and efficient MDM Chairperson with emphasis on personal rather than technical skills. The remaining themes related to the benefits of meetings to ensure quality and consistency of care; improve inter-professional relationships; and provide communication with and reassurance for patients. Conclusion: The role of the MDM Chairperson requires expert management and leadership skills to ensure meetings support quality patient-centred care. MDMs are perceived to provide multiple benefits to both clinicians and patients. Efforts to train Chairs and to maximise clinician and patient benefits may be warranted given the costly and time-consuming nature of MDMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The diagnosis and treatment of cancer is associated with significant distress and psychosocial morbidity. Although psychosocial interventions have been developed in an attempt to improve psychosocial outcomes in cancer patients and survivors, there is continued debate about whether there is adequate high-level evidence to establish the effectiveness of these interventions. The evidence base is limited as a result of numerous challenges faced by those attempting to conduct psychosocial intervention trials within the health system. Barriers include insufficient participant recruitment, difficulty generalizing from single-trial studies, difficulty in building and managing research teams with multidisciplinary expertise, lack of research design expertise and a lack of incentives for researchers conducting intervention research. To strengthen the evidence base, more intervention studies employing methodologically rigorous research designs are necessary. Methods In order to advance the evidence base of interventions designed to improve psychosocial outcomes for cancer patients and survivors, we propose the formation of a collaborative trials group that conducts multicenter trials to test the effectiveness of such interventions. Results Establishment of such a group would improve the quality of the evidence base in psychosocial research in cancer patients, by increasing support for conducting intervention research and providing intervention research training opportunities. A multidisciplinary collaborative group conducting multicenter trials would have the capacity to overcome many of the barriers that currently exist. Conclusions A stronger evidence base is necessary to identify effective psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. The proposed formation of a psycho-oncology collaborative trials group that conducts multicenter trials to test the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions would assist in achieving this outcome.

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite clinical practice guidelines to guide surveillance care for those who have completed treatment for this disease as well as screening for first degree relatives of people with CRC, the level of uptake of these recommendations remains uncertain. If outcomes for both patients and their families are to be improved, it is important to establish systematic and cost-effective interventions to improve adherence to guideline recommendations for CRC surveillance and screening. Methods/Design A randomized controlled trial will be used to test the effectiveness of a print-based intervention to improve adherence to colonoscopy surveillance among people with CRC and adherence to CRC screening recommendations among their first degree relatives (FDRs). People diagnosed with CRC in the past 10 months will be recruited through a population-based cancer registry. Consenting participants will be asked if their first degree relatives might also be willing to participate in the trial. Information on family history of CRC will be obtained from patients at baseline. Patients and their families will be randomized to either minimal ethical care or the print-based intervention. The print-based intervention for FDRs will be tailored to the participant's level of risk of CRC as determined by the self-reported family history assessment. Follow up data on surveillance and screening participation will be collected from patients and their FDRs respectively at 12, 24 and 36 months' post recruitment. The primary analyses will relate to comparing levels of guideline adherence in usual care group versus print-based group in the patient sample and the FDR sample respectively. Discussion Results of this study will provide contribute to the evidence base about effective strategies to a) improve adherence to surveillance recommendation for people with CRC; and b) improve adherence to screening recommendation for FDRs of people with CRC. The use of a population-based cancer registry to access the target population may have significant advantages in increasing the reach of the intervention. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number (ACTRN): ACTRN12609000628246.

Over the past 10 years, there has been limited progress for the treatment of brain cancer and outcomes for patients are not much improved. For brain cancer researchers, a major obstacle to biomarker driven research is limited access to brain cancer tissue for research purposes. The Mark Hughes Foundation Brain Biobank is one of the first post-mortem adult brain banks in Australia to operate with protocols specifically developed for brain cancer. Located within the Hunter New England Local Health District and operated by Hunter Cancer Biobank, the boundaries of service provided by the Brain Bank extend well into the surrounding regional and rural areas of the Local Health District and beyond. Brain cancer biobanking is challenging. There are conflicting international guidelines for best practice and unanswered questions relating to scientific, psychosocial and operational practices. To address this challenge, a best practice model was developed, informed by a consensus of existing data but with consideration of the difficulties associated with operating in regional or resource poor settings. The regional application of this model was challenged following the presentation of a donor located in a remote area, 380km away from the biobank. This required biobank staff to overcome numerous obstacles including long distance patient transport, lack of palliative care staff, death in the home and limited rural outreach services. Through the establishment of shared goals, contingency planning and the development of an informal infrastructure, the donation was facilitated within the required timeframe. This experience demonstrates the importance of collaboration and networking to overcome resource insufficiency and geographical challenges in rural cancer research programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of review Clinically significant distress is common in patients with cancer and if untreated can be associated with adverse outcomes. This article offers a review of current approaches to implementing and reporting the minimum components of distress screening and management interventions in cancer services. Recent findings Twenty-two relevant published articles were identified from January 2018 to February 2020. The reporting of recommended minimum components of distress screening and management interventions in these articles was not consistent. The majority of studies used validated tools to conduct initial screening. However, recommendations were either not reported or not followed regarding subsequent pathway components, secondary assessment, referral pathways linked to screening results and rescreening. The majority of studies did not include a description of the implementation of the distress screening program. A small number of studies described a comprehensive set of implementation strategies. Summary Distress screening and management interventions in cancer are an important component of comprehensive cancer care. To improve patient outcomes and guide researchers and services to identify effective models, studies must include and evaluate minimum recommended components and implementation strategies. Addressing these limitations with high-quality, robust interventions is vital for advancing the implementation of effective distress management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses quality of patient‐centered care focusing on medical oncology patients' perceptions and characteristics associated with quality of care. Topics include service provided at medical oncology treatment centers, measurement of quality of care using confirmatory factor analysis, and importance given to patient preferences and values in cancer information and treatment decision making.

Objective To compare the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among rural and urban support persons of haematological cancer survivors and explore factors associated with having one or more of these outcomes. Methods Haematological cancer survivors were identified via 1 of 5 state-based cancer registries and invited to take part in a survey. Those who agreed were asked to pass on a questionnaire package to their support person. Measures included the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, Support Persons' Unmet Need Survey, and sociodemographic questions. Results Nine-hundred and eighty-nine (66%) participating survivors had a participating support person. There were no significant differences in the proportion of urban versus rural support persons who reported elevated levels of depression (21% vs 23%), anxiety (16% vs 17%), or stress (16% vs 20%), P > .05. Odds of reporting at least 1 indicator of psychological morbidity increased by 10% to 17% for each additional high or very high unmet need and by 2% for those who had relocated from their usual place of residence for the survivor to receive treatment and was decreased by 5% to 54% for those support persons who reported that they had no chronic health conditions. Conclusions Psychological outcomes for rural and urban support persons are similar. Those who have poor health, have had to relocate, and who have multiple unmet needs are particularly vulnerable to poor psychological outcomes. These factors should be assessed to enable early intervention for those at risk of poor outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify specific actions for patient-centred quality improvement in chronic disease outpatient settings, this study identified patients' general and specific preferences among a comprehensive suite of initiatives for change.Design and Setting: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in three hospital-based clinics specializing in oncology, neurology and cardiology care located in New South Wales, Australia.Participants and Measures: Adult English-speaking outpatients completed the touch-screen Consumer Preferences Survey in waiting rooms or treatment areas. Participants selected up to 23 general initiatives that would improve their experience. Using adaptive branching, participants could select an additional 110 detailed initiatives and complete a relative prioritization exercise.Results: A total of 541 individuals completed the survey (71.1% consent, 73.1% completion). Commonly selected general initiatives, presented in order of decreasing priority (along with sample proportion), included: improved parking (60.3%), up-to-date information provision (15.0%), ease of clinic contact (12.9%), access to information at home (12.8%), convenient appointment scheduling (14.2%), reduced wait-times (19.8%) and information on medical emergencies (11.1%). To address these general initiatives, 40 detailed initiatives were selected by respondents.Conclusions: Initiatives targeting service accessibility and information provision, such as parking and up-to-date information on patient prognoses and progress, were commonly selected and perceived to be of relatively greater priority. Specific preferences included the need for clinics to provide patient-designated parking in close proximity to the clinic, information on treatment progress and test results (potentially in the form of designated brief appointments or via telehealth) and comprehensive and trustworthy lists of information sources to access at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended 6 objectives for achieving patient-centered care. However, most patient-reported outcome measures developed with cancer populations fail to address all 6 patient-centeredness dimensions. The Quality of Patient-Centered Cancer Care (QPCCC) measure was developed on the basis of IOM recommendations, and the measure's validity, reliability, and floor and ceiling effects were examined. METHODS: The development of the QPCCC measure included interviews with hematological cancer survivors and feedback from hematologists and cancer patients. To evaluate the measure's psychometric properties, hematological cancer survivors were identified via 2 cancer registries and were mailed the QPCCC measure. To examine test-retest reliability, a second QPCCC measure was mailed to survivors 7 to 14 days after they had returned the first measure. RESULTS: Overall, 545 hematological cancer survivors completed the 48-item QPCCC measure. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 10-factor structure with factor loadings > 0.40. The subscales were labeled Treatment Delivery, Treatment Decision Making, Coordinated and Integrated Care, Emotional Support, Timely Care, Follow-Up Care, Respectful Communication, Patient Preferences and Values, Cancer Information, and Equitable Care. The QPCCC measure demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for all subscales (Cronbach's α = .73-.94). When test-retest reliability was assessed, 4 items demonstrated substantial agreement ( > 0.60), whereas 40 items showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.41-0.60). Ceiling effects were present for 8 subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The QPCCC measure has acceptable face and content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency. However, the measure's discriminant validity and test-retest reliability could be improved. The QPCCC measure could be used to improve patient-centered cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care have failed to measure all six patient-centredness dimensions endorsed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). This study is the first to use the Quality of Patient-Centered Cancer Care (QPCCC) measure that covers all six IOM patient-centredness dimensions to examine haematological cancer survivors' perceptions of care and characteristics associated with perceived quality of care. Methods: Haematological cancer survivors diagnosed in the last 6 years and aged 18-80 years were recruited from two Australian state population-based cancer registries. Survivors were mailed the 48-item QPCCC measure. Results: Overall, 545 haematological cancer survivors completed the measure. Areas of care most commonly identified as delivered were hospital staff showing respect to survivors (93%) and making sure the correct treatment was received (93%). Aspects of care most frequently nominated as not delivered were hospital staff helping family and friends (34%) or the survivor (32%) to find other people with similar experiences to talk to. Characteristics associated with survivors perceiving higher quality care was delivered included being employed, having private health insurance, being younger, a Non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis and more recent diagnosis. Being depressed or stressed was associated with perceived lower quality of care. Conclusions: Provision of peer support programs that allow haematological cancer survivors and families and friends to talk to others in similar situations could be improved. Using PROMs to identify areas where cancer survivors perceive improvements are needed is essential to quality improvement efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health utilization and need assessment data suggest there is considerable variation in access to outpatient specialist care. However, it is unclear if the types of barriers experienced are specific to chronic disease groups or experienced universally. This systematic review provides a detailed summary of common and unique barriers experienced by chronic disease groups when accessing and receiving care, and a synthesized list of possible health service initiatives to improve equitable delivery of optimal care in high-income countries. Quantitative articles describing barriers to specialist outpatient services were retrieved from CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PyscINFO. To be eligible for review, studies: were published from 2002 to May 2014; included samples with cancer, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, arthritis, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, asthma, chronic pulmonary disorder (COPD) or depression; and, were conducted in high-income countries. Using a previously validated model of access (Penchansky and Thomas' model of fit), barriers were grouped according to five overarching domains and defined in more detail using 33 medical subject headings. Results from reviewed articles, including the scope and frequency of reported barriers, are conceptualized using thematic analysis and framed as possible health service initiatives. A total of 3181 unique records were screened for eligibility, of which 74 studies were included in final analysis. The largest proportion of studies reported acceptability barriers (75.7 %), of which demographic disparities (44.6 %) were reported across all diseases. Other frequently reported barriers included inadequate need assessment (25.7 %), information provision (32.4 %), or health communication (20 %). Unique barriers were identified for oncology, mental health, and COPD samples. Based on the scope, frequency and measurement of reported barriers, eight key themes with associated implications for health services are presented. Examples include: common accommodation and accessibility barriers caused on service organization or physical structure, such as parking and appointment scheduling; common barriers created by poor coordination of care within the healthcare team; and unique barriers resulting from inadequate need assessment and referral practices. Consideration of barriers, across and within chronic diseases, suggests a number of specific initiatives are likely to improve the delivery of patient-centered care and increase equity in access to high-quality health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine the: (1) proportion of studies that describe characteristics of helpline service delivery, compared to the proportion that report trials testing efficacy or effectiveness of helplines in changing user outcomes; (2) proportion of efficacy or effectiveness studies that meet EPOC criteria for methodological rigor; and (3) potential benefits of cancer helplines for people affected by cancer based on findings from rigorous efficacy or effectiveness trials. Methods Electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched to identify English-language studies describing original research published from 1991 to 2011. Results Twenty-eight publications met the review inclusion criteria. From these studies, data on: the characteristics of cancer helpline users; call content; and user satisfaction, were extracted. The potential for helplines to improve the psychosocial outcomes of callers was examined for the three intervention trials. Conclusion There is a lack of robust evidence regarding the level and types of benefits that cancer helplines may deliver to callers affected by cancer. Given increased emphasis on delivering best-practise supportive care, building the evidence base in this field may assist cancer helplines to increase their service uptake, reach, and benefit to callers. Practise implications There is a need for more rigorous intervention-focussed studies in this field across a broader range of cancer populations. Future studies should focus on relevant patient-centred outcomes, such as improved knowledge and greater involvement in decision-making, while incorporating process measures to account for intervention fidelity and clinical performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support--relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures. Methods Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation. Results Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was "information, communication and education" (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the "involvement of family and friends." Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability. Conclusions There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Little is known about access to care for hematological cancer patients. This study explored patient experiences of barriers to accessing care and associated financial and social impacts of the disease. Metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan experiences were compared. Methods A state-based Australian cancer registry identified adult survivors of hematological cancers (including lymphoma, leukemia and myeloma) diagnosed in the previous 3 years. Survivors were mailed a self-report pen and paper survey. Findings Of the 732 eligible survivors, 268 (37%) completed a survey. Forty percent of participants reported at least one locational barrier which limited access to care. Only 2% reported cancer-related expenses had restricted their treatment choices. Almost two-thirds (64%) reported at least one financial or social impact on their daily lives related to cancer. The most frequently reported impacts were the need to take time off work (44%) and difficulty paying bills (21%). Survivors living in a nonmetropolitan location had 17 times the odds of reporting locational or financial barriers compared with those in metropolitan areas. Preferred potential solutions to alleviate the financial and social impacts of the disease were: free parking for tests or treatment (37%), free medications or treatments (29%), and being able to get treatment in their local region (20%). Conclusions Providing more equitable access to care for hematological cancer patients in Australia requires addressing distances traveled to attend treatment and their associated financial and social impacts on nonmetropolitan patients. Greater flexibility in service delivery is also needed for patients still in the workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meeting the psychosocial needs of vulnerable groups such as cancer survivors remains an ongoing challenge. This is particularly so for those who have less access to the usual forms of medical specialist and in-person support networks. Internet-based approaches offer an opportunity to better meet patients' information and support needs by overcoming the barrier of geographic isolation. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the reported level of access to the Internet, preferred sources of information, and preferred sources of support among survivors of hematologic cancers. Method: A population-based, Australian state cancer registry invited eligible survivors to complete a survey about psychosocial needs, including items measuring Internet access and patterns of use. Of the 732 eligible survivors invited to participate, 268 (36.6%) completed and returned the pen-and-paper-based survey. Results: The majority of participants (186/254, 73.2%) reported a high level of access to the Internet, with higher Internet access associated with a higher level of education, larger household, younger age, and being married or employed. A total of 62.2% (156/251) of survivors indicated they were likely to use the Internet for accessing information, with the percentage much lower (69/251, 28%) for accessing support via the Internet. Likelihood of using the Internet for support was associated with feeling anxious and being employed. Conclusions: While the Internet appears to offer promise in increasing equitable access to information and support for cancer survivors for both metropolitan and regional areas, it is viewed less favorably for support and by particular subgroups (eg, older people and those without a university degree) within the survivor population. Promoting greater understanding of this mode of support may be required to achieve its potential. Information and support options other than Web-based approaches may continue to be needed by vulnerable groups of cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]