Search

Introduction: How to communicate effectively with adolescent and young adults with cancer (AYACs) is a research priority. In a UK-wide survey of young people with cancer's research priorities, communication was a striking cross-cutting theme. It is increasingly recognised that AYACs have experiences and communication needs that differ significantly from those of younger children and older adults. The purpose of this review is to explore the features of effective clinical communication with AYACs. Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify and map the available evidence using a broad scope to get an overview of the pertinent literature, identify knowledge gaps and clarify concepts. The searches yielded 5825 records, generating 4040 unique articles. These were screened and 71 full articles were read by four researchers with disagreements resolved by discussion leaving 29 included articles. Narrative synthesis was undertaken in relation to each of the research questions. Results: Three key themes were identified: being an adolescent/young adult, supporters, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). AYACs need to feel that HCPs understand their unique perspective. They want to be involved, this changes over time and in different contexts. Supporters are a central tenet, are most often parents and undertake several roles which are not always universally supportive. HCPs enable involvement of AYACs, and this needs to be actively promoted. AYACs preference for their level of involvement requires continual assessment. The three themes are interlinked and exist within the wider scope of the triadic encounter and cancer experience. Conclusion: Supporters, most often parents were a key feature across the data and were seemingly paradoxical in nature. Triadic communication, the presence of a third person, is a central tenet of communication with AYACs and we propose a conceptual model to represent the nuances, components, and facets of this complex communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall aim was to evaluate the key worker role across principal treatment centres for children with cancer in England, Wales and Scotland. Mixed-methods case study gathering data from multiple perspectives using questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and reports/performance documents over a two-year period. Framework approach was adopted to analyse transcripts and documentary data. Participants included: 22 nurse specialist key workers, 103 parents, 85 professionals and 10 children/young people. Qualitative and quantitative data were woven together, to best illuminate key worker services. Four main models of care were described as well as the context of care and process of care. Key working effectiveness centred around three pillars: care coordination; expert knowledge, experience and expertise; relationship. These were essential to improved family experience, emotional wellbeing, and delivery of individualized care closer to home. The role is complex and diverse, responding to local needs. Certain conditions, (e.g., high caseload) placed limits on enacting the three pillars, diminishing the positive experience of families. When they worked well, key workers reduced the fragmented nature of services and families placed great value on keeping the same key worker from diagnosis into long-term care. Retaining these roles, where already in place, or including, if not, we would recommend, factoring into budgets to sustain and expand such roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. Results: Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists’ reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. Conclusion: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.Methods: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.Results: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.Conclusions: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient experience is increasingly used as an indicator of high quality care in addition to more traditional clinical end-points. Surveys are generally accepted as appropriate methodology to capture patient experience. No validated patient experience surveys exist specifically for adolescents and young adults (AYA) aged 13-24 years at diagnosis with cancer. This paper describes early work undertaken to develop and validate a descriptive patient experience survey for AYA with cancer that encompasses both their cancer experience and age-related issues. We aimed to develop, with young people, an experience survey meaningful and relevant to AYA to be used in a longitudinal cohort study (BRIGHTLIGHT), ensuring high levels of acceptability to maximise study retention. Methods: A three-stage approach was employed: Stage 1 involved developing a conceptual framework, conducting literature/Internet searches and establishing content validity of the survey; Stage 2 confirmed the acceptability of methods of administration and consisted of four focus groups involving 11 young people (14-25 years), three parents and two siblings; and Stage 3 established survey comprehension through telephone-administered cognitive interviews with a convenience sample of 23 young people aged 14-24 years. Result: Stage 1: Two-hundred and thirty eight questions were developed from qualitative reports of young people's cancer and treatment-related experience. Stage 2: The focus groups identified three core themes: (i) issues directly affecting young people, e.g. impact of treatment-related fatigue on ability to complete survey; (ii) issues relevant to the actual survey, e.g. ability to answer questions anonymously; (iii) administration issues, e.g. confusing format in some supporting documents. Stage 3: Cognitive interviews indicated high levels of comprehension requiring minor survey amendments. Conclusion: Collaborating with young people with cancer has enabled a survey of to be developed that is both meaningful to young people but also examines patient experience and outcomes associated with specialist cancer care. Engagement of young people throughout the survey development has ensured the content appropriately reflects their experience and is easily understood. The BRIGHTLIGHT survey was developed for a specific research project but has the potential to be used as a TYA cancer survey to assess patient experience and the care they receive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To systematically identify and analyse published research exploring teenage and young adult experience of cancer to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome survey intended to explore if a correlation exists between specialist cancer care and quality of life for young people with cancer. Design: Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Data sources: Medline, CINAHL Plus and PsycInfo were searched for literature published between 1987 and 2011. Review methods: Search terms included those for: population (e.g. teen, young adult); intervention (e.g. cancer); outcome (e.g. experience); and study type (e.g. qualitative). Inclusion criteria: adolescents and young adults were both represented; diagnosis of cancer; published in English; and used qualitative methods to report an aspect of the cancer experience. Studies were excluded if they were reporting: palliative care experience; secondary data; or proxy views, i.e. parent or health professional perspective. Methodological quality was assessed using Cesario criteria and metasynthesis involved deconstruction and decontextualising findings to identify common themes. Results: Three hundred and fifteen studies were identified, 17 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, most (59%), were assessed as being high quality, none were rated poor. Nine common themes were identified: psychosocial function, importance of peers, experience of healthcare, importance of support, impact of symptoms, striving for normality, impact of diagnosis, positive experiences, and financial consequences. Conclusions: The conceptual model developed from the meta-synthesis depicts the mediators and consequences of cancer care that impact on young people's quality of life after a cancer diagnosis. The model highlights areas that require further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Growing consensus describes it as "inappropriate" to deliver care to young people in either child or adult environments of care or in settings not equipped to meet their psychosocial needs. The aim of this review was to identify what patient and professional experience tells us about the culture of care specific to young people receiving cancer care in the UK. Methods: A narrative review of published, UK‐based research was conducted. Five online databases were searched using terms related to "culture of care," "cancer" and "adolescent." Papers were assessed for relevance, according to pre‐determined criteria: 19/1,366 identified papers met our inclusion criteria. Results: Studies included in this review were predominantly reflective of care received in specialist units. The findings were in support of "young people‐friendly," "tailored environments," showing how they facilitate young people to have positive experiences of care. Communication, information delivery and patient choice were themes that were central to the culture of care. Conclusion: Highlighted was the need to provide care beyond addressing clinical needs through a young person‐centred approach, to facilitate optimal experiences of care. However, to fully understand the culture of care, research needs to focus on the delivery of care outside of specialist units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]