Search

Background: The interest and activity in measuring and reporting the impact of publicly funded health and medical research has grown rapidly in recent years. Research evaluation typically relies on researchers for much of the information for an impact assessment. However, the acceptability and feasibility of this activity among health researchers is unknown. The aim of this study was to understand the role and opinions of cancer researchers in the growing area of impact evaluation activity, to inform the logistics of a sustainable program of impact evaluation.Methods: A brief anonymous online survey was administered to 95 current and past grant recipients funded through the external grants program at Cancer Council New South Wales. Eleven survey statements were constructed with Likert responses and supplemented with two open-ended questions. The statements covered the conceptual, attitudinal and practical aspects of impact evaluation. The survey targeted researchers from the full spectrum of cancer control research classifications. Descriptive analyses obtained response frequencies and percentages.Results: Forty-five cancer researchers completed the survey (response rate 47%) and 77% were Associate Professors or Professors. Responses were polarised for questions relating to engaging with research end-users, perceived time-pressure to collate data, and pressure to produce research outputs. Some researchers emphasised that quality was an important goal over quantity and warned that collecting impact data created incentives and disincentives for researchers.Conclusion: There was mixed support and acceptance among senior cancer researchers in Australia on their perceived role and engagement with research impact activities. Sole reliance on researchers for collating and reporting impact data may be problematic. Requesting information from researchers could be minimised and confined to final reports and possible verification of externally-led evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The risk of dying from COVID-19 is higher for those who are older, immune-compromised, or chronically ill. Vaccines are an effective strategy in reducing mortality and morbidity from COVID-19. However, for COVID-19 vaccination programs to reach full potential, vaccines must be taken up by those at greatest risk, such as cancer patients. Understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders involved in cancer patient COVID-19 vaccine uptake will be critical to ensuring appropriate support, and information is provided to facilitate vaccination. The aim of this research was to explore the longitudinal views of cancer stakeholders regarding COVID-19 vaccination., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with cancer patients (n = 23), family members (n = 10), cancer health professionals (n = 19), and representatives of cancer nongovernment organizations (n = 7) across Australia 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach., Results: All stakeholder groups expressed mostly positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, with the following key themes identified: (1) high motivation-vaccination perceived as offering health protection and hope; (2) hesitancy-concern about vaccine hesitancy among the general population, with a minority hesitant themselves; (3) confusion and frustration-regarding the vaccine rollout and patient eligibility; (4) uncertainty-about vaccination in the context of cancer; (5) access to vaccination; and (6) desire for expert individualized advice-on vaccine interaction with cancer treatments., Conclusion: These findings highlight the COVID-19 vaccine concerns and information needs of cancer stakeholders. Policymakers need to provide clear tailored information regarding vaccine eligibility, accessibility, benefits, and risks to facilitate vaccine uptake., (© 2022 The Authors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) is increasingly used to personalize treatments, providing hope, but potentially disappointment, for patients. We explored psychological outcomes in patients with advanced, incurable cancer, after receiving CTGP results., Methods: Participants with advanced, incurable cancer (n = 560, mean age 56, 43% university educated) in this longitudinal substudy of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (MoST), completed questionnaires before and after receiving CGP results. MoST participants, recruited from Australian oncology clinics, undergo CTGP, and if there are actionable findings, are offered treatment in a related therapeutic trial if available., Results: Patients who received actionable results, (n = 356, 64%) had lower gene-related distress (MICRA) (p < 0.001) and Impact of Events scores (p = 0.039) than patients with non-actionable results. Those with actionable results offered ensured access to tailored treatment (n = 151) reported lower anxiety (p = 0.002) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01) and greater hope (p = 0.002) than those not offered. Positive attitudes towards uncertainty and higher self-efficacy for coping with results were associated with lower psychological distress and uncertainty, and higher hope and satisfaction with the decision to have CTGP (ps=0.001-0.047). Those with higher knowledge reported greater anxiety (p = 0.034)., Conclusion: Receiving a non-actionable CTGP result, or an actionable result without ensured access to treatment, may cause increased distress in advanced cancer patients. Coping style was also associated with distress., Practice Implications: Pre-testing assessment and counseling addressing attitudes toward uncertainty and self-efficacy, and post-CTGP result support for patients receiving a non-actionable result or who receive an actionable results without ensured access to treatment, may benefit patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first-degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first-degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade-off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS., (© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)