Search

Background Quantitative studies show people living with a lower-grade glioma (LGG) often report low health-related quality of life. However, it is unclear how this impact is experienced; resulting supportive care needs are also poorly understood. We explored how people experience the impact of living long-term with an LGG, to help identify potential supportive care needs. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of people with LGG (n  = 28) across the United Kingdom, who had completed primary treatment (male n  = 16, female n  = 12, mean age 54.6 years, mean time since diagnosis 8.7 years). Interviews were transcribed and inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Results Four themes relating to the impact experiences of people with LGG were generated: " Emotional response to the diagnosis ," " Living with the 'What ifs' ," " Changing relationships ," and " Faltering independence." These reflect participants' experiences with symptoms (eg, fatigue, seizures) and impairments (eg, motor dysfunction, cognitive deficits), and how these, in turn, drive impacts on daily living (including on work, relationships, social activities, and transport). Participants spoke about their experiences with profound emotion throughout. Conclusions People with LGG can experience wide-ranging everyday impacts and may have extensive supportive care needs. This study highlights how this impact is experienced and what it means to people with LGG. Best practice suggestions for conducting comprehensive needs assessments tailored to those with LGG, and the development of personalized plans to meet those needs, would be a critical step to ensure that people with LGG are best supported in living with their condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Supported self‐management can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with cancer; the considerations required to implement self‐management support (SMS) for people living with a lower‐grade glioma (LGG)—who often have complex support needs—are not known. We aimed to identify and understand these implementation considerations through the lens of normalisation process theory (NPT), from the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCP) and people with LGG. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with HCPs who support adults with brain tumours (n = 25; 12 different healthcare professions), and people with LGG who had completed primary treatment (n = 28; male n = 16, mean age 54.6 years, mean time since diagnosis 8.7 years), from across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed and inductive open coding conducted, before deductively mapping to constructs of NPT. We first mapped HCP data, then integrated data from people with LGG to explore alignment in experiences and perspectives. Results: We generated supporting evidence for all four NPT constructs and related subconstructs, namely: 'Coherence', 'Cognitive participation', 'Collective action' and 'Reflexive monitoring'. Data from HCPs and people with LGG clearly demonstrated that effective SMS constitutes a collective activity. Key implementation considerations included: ensuring awareness of, and access to, support; building strong HCP‐support recipient relationships; and careful inclusion of close family and friends. We identified pertinent challenges, such as identifying support needs (influenced by the extent to which those with LGG engage in help‐seeking), resistance to support (e.g., technology literacy), training for HCPs and HCP cooperation. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the collective nature of, and provides insight into the individual roles within, supported self‐management. We outline considerations to operationalise, sustain and appraise the implementation of SMS for people with LGG. Patient or Public Contribution: People with brain tumours, and informal caregivers, were involved in the development of information materials and topic guides to ensure accessibility and pertinence. They also had opportunities to comment on interview findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Those closest to people with lower-grade gliomas (LGGs) often assume the role of informal caregiver (IC). The additional responsibilities mean ICs of people with cancer can experience adverse impacts on their own lives. We explored the emotional impact of informal caregiving for people with LGGs. This was a descriptive qualitative study within the multi-method Ways Ahead project. We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals from the United Kingdom, who currently, or in the past 5 years, informally cared for someone with an LGG. Interviews encompassed experiences of emotional impact as a consequence of caregiving for someone with an LGG. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken. We interviewed 19 ICs (mean age 54.6 years; 14 females, 5 males). Participants reported substantial emotional impact. Four themes and associated subthemes were generated: Emotional responses to the illness (e.g. feeling helpless), Emotional responses to the unknown (e.g. anxiety about future uncertainty), Emotional consequences of care recipient changes (e.g. challenges of changed relationship dynamics), and Emotional weight of the responsibility (e.g. feeling burnout). Emotional impact in one area often exacerbated impact in another (e.g. future uncertainty impacted feelings of helplessness). Participants detailed the factors that helped them manage the emotional impact (e.g. being resilient). ICs of people with LGGs can experience wide-ranging emotional responses to and impacts of the illness, uncertain prognosis, care recipient changes, and the toll of caregiving. Adjustment and resilience are key protective factors, though further consideration of ways to identify and fulfil the emotional support needs of ICs of people with LGGs is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Self-management interventions can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes for cancer survivors. However, we do not know which intervention characteristics (i.e., how they are delivered) and components (i.e., what they deliver) are beneficial. This can influence the implementation of such interventions into routine cancer care. We aimed to identify existing self-management interventions for adult cancer survivors, describe their characteristics and components, and investigate associations with quality of life. We identified 32 interventions. Studies had varying quality. A total of 22 studies reported significant improvements in quality of life, associated most often with combined individual and group delivery. Self-management interventions showed promise for improving the quality of life in cancer survivors; however, caution is required because the intervention characteristics and self-management components delivered varied considerably. Still, we highlight what may be worth adapting from existing interventions. Overall, these findings provide the foundations to help inform the development and implementation of self-management interventions for cancer survivors. Self-management can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors. Which intervention characteristics and components are beneficial is unclear, hindering implementation into practice. We systematically searched six databases from inception to 17 November 2021 for studies evaluating self-management interventions for adult cancer survivors post-treatment. Independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Data extraction included population and study characteristics, intervention characteristics (TIDieR) and components (PRISMS), (associations with) quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy, and economic outcomes. Study quality was appraised, and narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified 53 papers reporting 32 interventions. Studies had varying quality. They were most often randomised controlled trials (n = 20), targeted at survivors of breast (n = 10), prostate (n = 7), or mixed cancers (n = 11). Intervention characteristics (e.g., provider, location) varied considerably. On average, five (range 1–10) self-management components were delivered, mostly "Information about condition and its management" (n = 26). Twenty-two studies reported significant QoL improvements (6 also reported significant self-efficacy improvements); these were associated most consistently with combined individual and group delivery. Economic evaluations were limited and inconclusive. Self-management interventions showed promise for improving QoL, but study quality was variable, with substantial heterogeneity in intervention characteristics and components. By identifying what to adapt from existing interventions, these findings can inform development and implementation of self-management interventions in cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Those closest to the patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) often become informal caregivers (ICs). Caregiving demands can impact ICs' wellbeing, meaning they themselves may require support. We explored the nature and quality of support from informal networks for ICs of LGG patients. Methods. In this cross-sectional qualitative study, semistructured interviews were conducted with individuals from the United Kingdom who currently, or in the past five years, informally cared for someone diagnosed with an LGG. Interviews explored ICs' experiences of receiving support from informal networks. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Results. Nineteen ICs were interviewed (mean age 54.6 years; 5 males, 14 females). ICs received multiple forms of support from their informal networks: emotional (e.g., "opportunities to talk"), instrumental (e.g., "opportunities for relief"), information (e.g., "information from network contacts"), and appraisal (e.g., "comparisons with similar others"). Networks comprised strong/familiar (e.g., close friends) and weaker/unfamiliar (e.g., other ICs) ties. Supportive networks were perceived to help protect ICs' wellbeing. Participants perceived challenges such as poor understanding and unsolicited advice to weaken the quality of support. Conclusion. Informal networks can provide wide-ranging support for ICs of the LGG patients. Different supports may be sought or provided from different contacts, highlighting the importance and value of extended networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Living with and beyond a diagnosis of a low- and intermediate-grade glioma (LIGG) can adversely impact many aspects of people’s lives and their quality of life (QoL). In people with chronic conditions, self-management can improve QoL. This is especially true if people are supported to self-manage. Supported self-management programmes have been developed for several cancers, but the unique challenges experienced by LIGG survivors mean these programmes may not be readily transferable to this group. The Ways Ahead study aims to address this gap by exploring the needs of LIGG survivors to develop a prototype for a supported self-management programme tailored to this group. Methods and analysis Ways Ahead will follow three sequential phases, underpinned by a systematic review of self-management interventions in cancer. In phase 1, qualitative methods will be used to explore and understand the issues faced by LIGG survivors, as well as the barriers and facilitators to self-management. Three sets of interviews will be conducted with LIGG survivors, their informal carers and professionals. Thematic analysis will be conducted with reference to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory. Phase 2 will involve co-production workshops to generate ideas for the design of a supported self-management programme. Workshop outputs will be translated into a design specification for a prototype programme. Finally, phase 3 will involve a health economic assessment to examine the feasibility and benefits of incorporating the proposed programme into the current survivorship care pathway. This prototype will then be ready for testing in a subsequent trial. Ethics and dissemination The study has been reviewed and approved by an National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 20/WA/0118). The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, broadcast media, the study website, The Brain Tumour Charity and stakeholder engagement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION:The adoption and reimbursement of a new or novel medical device frequently occurs after an economic evaluation of the innovation. One important factor for reimbursement rejections by the English National Institute for Health and and Care Excellence (NICE) Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) appears to be the little or no attention to early assessment (1). The aim of this study is to achieve a more in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the value of early Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for new medical devices.METHODS:This study employs a mixed methods research strategy. Our informant interviews involved two types of key stakeholders: health economists in academia and professionals in medical devices firms with a professional role in research and development or market access departments. Our qualitative analysis focused on two samples from six universities (five in the United Kingdom, UK, and one in Italy) and six small to medium-sized enterprises (five in the UK, and one in Italy). Insights from field work interviews helped to design our complementary quantitative analysis.RESULTS:During thematic analysis, barriers to adoption of early HTA emerged across three domains. First, educational barriers (that is, what HTA/early HTA is and how to conduct it) influenced the foundation for the reimbursement strategy. Second, interviewees highlighted the presence of intrinsic barriers (for example, resources for translational and early preclinical research, reliability and reproducibility, evidence, and dissemination of sensitive information) within existing practices and knowledge. Third, several research gaps (that is, medical device classification, standardization of methods, guidelines for developers, and alignment of stakeholders perspectives) were identified. Finally, academics adopted early HTA to assess different aspects of a medical device early in development; however, developers were focused on the assessment of investment and safety/usability factors, especially for in-house evaluations.CONCLUSIONS:If decision makers expect developers to produce better quality evidence and society aims to optimize resources that is, not investing in non-cost-effective technologies, then the incorporation of a more robust analytical framework including a societal perspective is necessary to understand how early HTA can be embedded into all aspects of the development process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]