Search

Background. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people affected by cancer were in need of information about the virus and about the (self-) management of cancer symptoms and treatment. It is important to understand how patients with cancer navigated through the pandemic and to explore their experience relating to their supportive care needs. Aim. This study aimed to describe the experience of Swiss oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic with additional supportive cancer care. Methods. A single-center study was conducted in 2021. Patients with melanoma, breast, lung, or colon cancer who received active systemic anticancer treatment at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and who were additionally seeing either oncology clinical nurse specialists, integrative medicine physicians, or both were included. We conducted semistructured interviews alongside the patient-reported quantitative assessment of distress and resilience. Thematic analysis was performed for the qualitative data and descriptive statistics for the quantitative data. Results. Eighteen patients with cancer were interviewed. Patients seeing an integrative medicine physician highlighted that they positively felt being addressed as a whole person during the consultations. The oncology clinical nurse specialists were perceived as the first point of contact for the patients and had more time during the pandemic compared to what the patients normally received. In general, patients did not experience delays or disruptions in their cancer treatment. As immunosuppressed and fatigued patients with cancer, they felt supported by the restrictions and hygienic measures. Access to vaccination reassured patients against the risk of infection. These results were reflected in the quantitative data, as we found moderate distress levels (M = 4.1; SD = 2.5) and high resilience scores (M = 7.5; SD = 0.9) in this patient population. Conclusion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with cancer felt particularly supported by

Purpose This study aims to describe the experience of Swiss oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A national multi-center study including five hospitals covering the three main language regions of Switzerland was conducted between March and July 2021. Patients with melanoma, breast, lung, or colon cancer receiving active systemic anti-cancer treatment at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic were included. We conducted semi-structured telephone or onsite interviews alongside the administration of distress and resilience-validated questionnaires. Thematic analysis was performed for the qualitative data and descriptive statistics for the quantitative data. Results Sixty-two cancer patients with a mean age of 61 (SD=14) (58% female) were interviewed. Based on the interviews, we identified that the experience of having cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic was related to five dimensions: psychological, social, support, healthcare, and vaccination. Three themes transverse the five dimensions: (a) needs, (b) positive changes, and (c) phases of the pandemic. In general, patients did not experience delays or disruptions in their cancer treatment nor felt additionally burdened by the pandemic. Lockdown and isolation were reported as mixed experiences (positive and negative), and access to vaccination reassured patients against the risk of infection and instilled hope to return to normalcy. Additionally, we found low distress levels (M=2.9; SD=2.5) and high resilience scores (M=7; SD=1.3) in these patients. Conclusion Swiss patients with cancer did not express major needs or disruptions in their care during this period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results identify the mixed experiences of patients and highlight the high resilience levels.

Purpose: Identifying cancer nursing research priorities is central to influencing the direction of cancer care research. The aim of this rapid review was to explore research priorities identified by oncology nurses for cancer care delivery between 2019 and 2022. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis informed the design of the rapid review. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between December 1st, 2018, and September 30th, 2022. This timeframe was chosen to account for the latest relevant evidence synthesis, as well as changes in cancer care necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quality Assessment of Diverse Studies tool was used to appraise quality. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. Many of the research priorities identified were influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The top cancer nursing research priority identified was the role of technology in improving patient and caregiver symptoms and health outcomes. Other most prevalent research priorities were focused on symptom management, culturally sensitive palliative and psychosocial care, early/integrated palliative care, financial toxicity, modifiable risk factors related to social determinants of health, public and patient involvement in research, and oncology nurses' well-being and scope of practice.Conclusion: The findings indicate a need to steer a strategic programme of cancer nursing research towards digitalisation in cancer care to meet the current needs of people living with cancer and their caregivers. However, cancer nurses' burnout, staff shortages and disparities in specialist education will hinder the implementation of certain models of care., NA

Objectives: to provide an overview of three consecutive stages involved in the processing of quantitative research data (ie, data management, analysis, and interpretation) with the aid of practical examples to foster enhanced understanding. Data Sources: published scientific articles, research textbooks, and expert advice were used. Conclusion: typically, a considerable amount of numerical research data is collected that require analysis. On entry into a data set, data must be carefully checked for errors and missing values, and then variables must be defined and coded as part of data management. Quantitative data analysis involves the use of statistics. Descriptive statistics help summarize the variables in a data set to show what is typical for a sample. Measures of central tendency (ie, mean, median, mode), measures of spread (standard deviation), and parameter estimation measures (confidence intervals) may be calculated. Inferential statistics aid in testing hypotheses about whether or not a hypothesized effect, relationship, or difference is likely true. Inferential statistical tests produce a value for probability, the P value. The P value informs about whether an effect, relationship, or difference might exist in reality. Crucially, it must be accompanied by a measure of magnitude (effect size) to help interpret how small or large this effect, relationship, or difference is. Effect sizes provide key information for clinical decision-making in health care. Implications for Nursing Practice: developing capacity in the management, analysis, and interpretation of quantitative research data can have a multifaceted impact in enhancing nurses’ confidence in understanding, evaluating, and applying quantitative evidence in cancer nursing practice., NA

https://temoignagesillustres.ch

Background: Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may not be fully covered by existing measures like the PRO-CTCAE™. Selecting PRO-CTCAE™ items for monitoring symptomatic adverse events is hindered by the heterogeneity and complexity of IrAEs, and no standardised selection process exists. We aimed to reach expert consensus on the PRO-CTCAE™ symptom terms relevant for cancer patients receiving ICIs and to gather preliminary expert opinions about additional symptom terms reflecting ICI symptomatic toxicities. Additionally, we gathered expert consensus about a core set of priority symptom terms for prospective surveillance and monitoring. Design: This Delphi study involved an international panel of experts (n = 6 physicians; n = 3 nurses, n = 1 psychiatrist and n = 1 patient advocates). Experts prioritised the relevance and importance of symptom terms to monitor in patients treated with ICIs. Results: Experts reached a consensus on the relevance of all (n = 80) PRO-CTCAE™ Symptom Terms. Consensus on the importance of these symptom terms for prospective monitoring in patients receiving ICIs was reached for 81% (n = 65) of these terms. Additional symptoms terms (n = 56) were identified, with a consensus that 84% (47/56) of these additional symptom terms should also be considered when monitoring symptomatic IrAEs. Conclusion: This study identified a prioritised list of symptom terms for prospective surveillance for symptomatic IrAEs in patients receiving ICI treatment. Our results indicate the need to strengthen the validity of PRO measures used to monitor patients receiving ICIs. While these results provided some support for the content validity of the PRO CTCAE™ and resulted in a preliminary set of salient symptomatic adverse events related to the use of ICIs, broader international agreement and patient involvement are needed to further validate our initial findings.

Background: Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may not be fully covered by existing measures like the PRO-CTCAE™. Selecting PRO-CTCAE™ items for monitoring symptomatic adverse events is hindered by the heterogeneity and complexity of IrAEs, and no standardised selection process exists. We aimed to reach expert consensus on the PRO-CTCAE™ symptom terms relevant for cancer patients receiving ICIs and to gather preliminary expert opinions about additional symptom terms reflecting ICI symptomatic toxicities. Additionally, we gathered expert consensus about a core set of priority symptom terms for prospective surveillance and monitoring. Design: This Delphi study involved an international panel of experts (n = 6 physicians; n = 3 nurses, n = 1 psychiatrist and n = 1 patient advocates). Experts prioritised the relevance and importance of symptom terms to monitor in patients treated with ICIs. Results: Experts reached a consensus on the relevance of all (n = 80) PRO-CTCAE™ Symptom Terms. Consensus on the importance of these symptom terms for prospective monitoring in patients receiving ICIs was reached for 81% (n = 65) of these terms. Additional symptoms terms (n = 56) were identified, with a consensus that 84% (47/56) of these additional symptom terms should also be considered when monitoring symptomatic IrAEs. Conclusion: This study identified a prioritised list of symptom terms for prospective surveillance for symptomatic IrAEs in patients receiving ICI treatment. Our results indicate the need to strengthen the validity of PRO measures used to monitor patients receiving ICIs. While these results provided some support for the content validity of the PRO CTCAE™ and resulted in a preliminary set of salient symptomatic adverse events related to the use of ICIs, broader international agreement and patient involvement are needed to further validate our initial findings., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Hinweise zur Ausarbeitung dieser Publikation: Die SAMW hat im Auftrag der Akademien der Wissenschaften Schweiz die thematische Plattform «Chancen und Risiken der Personalisierten Gesundheit» etabliert. In diesem Rahmen hat der SAMW-Vorstand eine Arbeitsgruppe beauftragt, das Thema der Aus-, Weiter- und Fortbildung von Gesundheitsfachleuten im Bereich «Personalisierte Medizin» zu bearbeiten.