Search

Objective: This study aimed to explore whether young adults with cancer have different functioning compared to older age groups with cancer., Methods: This study is a cross-sectional study including 654 adults (≥18 years) with cancer. Exposure was age groups categorised as (1) young adults (n = 121) = 18-39 years; (2) middle-aged adults (n = 406) = 40-64 years; and (3) older people (n = 127) = ≥65 years. Outcomes were physical, role, social and cognitive functioning. Analyses consisted of linear regression models., Results: Middle-aged adults had a statistically significant worse physical functioning compared to young adults (-3.90: [95% CI: -6.84; -0.95]). The older age group also had a statistically significant worse physical functioning compared to young adults (-7.63: [95% CI: -11.29; -3.96]). Young adults had statistically significant lower role functioning (-7.11: [95% CI: -1.13; -13.08]) and cognitive functioning (-13.82: [95% CI: -7.35; -20.29]) compared to the older age group. There was no statistically significant difference in social functioning between the age groups., Conclusion: Young adults with cancer seem to have other functioning problems compared with higher age groups. These findings support current research regarding the need to develop age-specific and appropriate rehabilitation services for young adults with cancer., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Cancer Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Young adult cancer survivors, defined as individuals aged 18–39 who have completed primary curative treatment, face numerous age-specific biopsychosocial late effects that impact health-related quality of life negatively. Rehabilitation can enhance participation in life roles, work, leisure activities and health-related quality of life. However, there is a lack of age-specific cancer rehabilitation for this population, leaving many young adults with diminished self-efficacy in managing their challenges, resulting in unmet needs. This study aimed to co-produce and develop an age-specific, municipality-based cancer rehabilitation intervention programme to improve young adults' self-efficacy and health-related quality of life. Methods: The development process was completed between September 2019 and June 2023 and followed Hawkins et al.'s three-staged framework for co-production: (1) A literature review and stakeholder consultations; (2) four workshops with 2–6 young adult cancer survivors, 3–4 professionals, and two researchers and one workshop with 20 young adult cancer survivors and two researchers to co-produce the name, component content, delivery methods and potential outcomes; and (3) Refinement of the programme and its programme theory. Key findings from each stage informed the subsequent stages. Results: The Young Adults Taking ACtion programme was developed. It applies a person-centred approach and is grounded in social cognitive theory and experiential learning theory. It comprises one mandatory component, a needs assessment and goal setting that tailor which of the following seven components the young adults will receive: (1) everyday life, (2) physical activity, (3) psychological issues, (4) education and work, (5) sexuality and relationships, (6) funds and grants, and (7) family and friends. The programme is primarily group-based and will be delivered by an interdisciplinary team over 16 weeks. Conclusions: We co-produced a comprehensive, goal-oriented, and peer-based rehabilitation programme for young adult cancer survivors. The engagement of young adults and professionals ensured that the programme aligned with the population's needs and preferences and was context specific. Thus, it is likely that the programme will be more realistic and feasible to implement in clinical practice. Plain English Summary: Young adult cancer survivors, defined as persons aged 18–39 who have completed primary curative treatment, constitute a unique group, as they are in a particular life phase forming the foundations of their lives. As a result, they face distinct age-specific challenges in their everyday life related to education, work, and social activities, which negatively impact their quality of life. Rehabilitation may address these challenges, however there is a lack of rehabilitation programmes specifically tailored for young adult cancer survivors. This paper describes the co-production and development of an age-specific and municipality-based cancer rehabilitation programme to improve young adult cancer survivors' self-efficacy and health-related quality of life. The development included the following steps: (1) reviewing existing literature on cancer rehabilitation programmes for young adults and consulting with relevant stakeholders to gain insights into the target population and the context for implementation; (2) conducting four workshops involving 2–6 young adults, 3–4 professionals, and two researchers and one workshop with 20 young adults and two researchers to co-produce the programmes name, component content, delivery methods, and potential outcomes; and (3) Refine of the programme description. The co-produced programme, Young Adults Taking ACtion, includes one mandatory session for needs identification and goal setting that guides which of the following sessions the young adult cancer survivors will receive: (1) Everyday life, (2) Physical activity, (3) Psychological issues, (4) Education and work, (5) Sexuality and relationships, (6) Funding and grant, and (7) Family and friends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While evidence shows that occupational therapists can play a key role in the care of people with palliative care needs, more knowledge about effective occupational therapy interventions for this group is needed. Aim: To identify, organise and prioritise intervention components considered to be effective within occupational therapy for people with palliative care needs from the perspective of occupational therapy clinicians, managers and researchers. Design: Group Concept Mapping utilising a mixed methods participatory approach. Using a focus prompt, participants brainstormed, sorted, labelled and rated generated statements about effective occupational therapy intervention components. Multidimensional scaling analysis and cluster analysis were conducted. Setting/Participants: Snowball recruitment was used to recruit participants. Participants included occupational therapists worldwide who were able to read and write in English and were working as clinicians, managers and/or researchers with occupational therapy interventions for people with palliative care needs. Results: Seventy-two occupational therapists from 15 countries participated in the study representing Asia (n = 3, 20%), Europe (n = 8, 53%), Oceania (n = 2, 13%) and North America (n = 2, 13%). A total of 117 statements were identified and organised into five clusters: (1) being client-centred, (2) promoting occupational engagement to optimise quality of life, (3) involving the social and relational environment, (4) enabling occupations and (5) facilitating occupational adaptation. Conclusions: Five clusters of core occupational therapy intervention components were considered to be effective when supporting people with palliative care needs. Research should use this knowledge to inform future occupational therapy interventions for this group of people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aim to identify and prioritise rehabilitation interventions to strengthen participation in everyday life for young adult cancer survivors (YACS) between 18 and 39 years, involving the perspectives of YACS and relevant stakeholders. Methods: A group concept mapping study was conducted in Denmark from 2019 to 2020. Online, participants generated and sorted ideas followed by rating their importance. Multidimensional scaling followed by hierarchical cluster analyses were applied to generate a cluster rating map of the prioritised interventions, which participants validated at a face‐to‐face meeting. Finally, a concluding conceptual model of prioritised rehabilitation intervention for YACS was developed. Results: The study involved 25 YACS, three family members and 31 professionals working with YACS. The conceptual model included 149 ideas classified into eight intervention components created by the participants: (1) Treatment and possibilities within the social and healthcare system, (2) Rights and Finance, (3) Education and Work, (4) Psychological problems, (5) Body and Everyday Life, (6) Peer‐to‐peer, (7) Sexuality and Relationships and (8) Family and Friends. All components were rated equally important, whereby 17 ideas across the eight components were rated very important. Conclusion: This study indicates that rehabilitation of YACS should be composed of eight equally important intervention components requiring an interdisciplinary approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with advanced cancer face difficulties with their everyday activities at home that may reduce their health-related quality of life. To address these difficulties, we developed the 'Cancer Home-Life Intervention'. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of the 'Cancer Home Life-Intervention' compared with usual care with regard to patients' performance of, and participation in, everyday activities, and their health-related quality of life. Design and intervention: A randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02356627). The 'Cancer Home-Life Intervention' is a brief, tailored, occupational therapy-based and adaptive programme for people with advanced cancer targeting the performance of their prioritised everyday activities. Setting/participants: Home-living adults diagnosed with advanced cancer experiencing functional limitations were recruited from two Danish hospitals. They were assessed at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was activities of daily living motor ability. Secondary outcomes were activities of daily living process ability, difficulty performing prioritised everyday activities, participation restrictions and health-related quality of life. Results: A total of 242 participants were randomised either to the intervention group (n = 121) or the control group (n = 121). No effect was found on the primary outcome (between-group mean change: -0.04 logits (95% confidence interval: -0.23 to 0.15); p = 0.69). Nor was any effect on the secondary outcomes observed. Conclusion: In most cases, the 'Cancer Home-Life Intervention' was delivered through only one home visit and one follow-up telephone contact, which not was effective in maintaining or improving participants' everyday activities and health-related quality of life. Future research should pay even more attention to intervention development and feasibility testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]