Search

Objective Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy. Methods A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology. Results A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%). Conclusions There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Encounters with General Practitioners (GPs) have previously been identified as opportune for the delivery of smoking cessation care however the role of nurses in general practice settings is unclear. This study aimed to understand how nurses are providing smoking cessation care in general practice., Methods: Participants were registered nurses currently working in a general practice setting in Australia, who participated in one-off interviews over Zoom. Interviews were recorded and a thematic analysis was conducted., Results: Fourteen nurses participated of which 13 (93%) were female. Three themes were evident in the data: 1) Nurses' current practices in supporting people to quit smoking, 2) The influence of the general practice setting on smoking cessation discussions and 3) The challenges experienced by nurses in providing optimal smoking cessation care. Theme one describes the strategies currently employed by nurses to deliver smoking cessation care such as identifying appropriate clinical scenarios to have smoking cessation conversations with patients. Theme two explores the impact of diversity in the systems, processes, and structures across Australian general practice settings on the support offered by nurses, such as opportunities for ongoing relationships with patients Theme three focuses on ambiguity in nurses' roles within the practice setting including a lack of clarity for nurses in their roles in delivering smoking cessation care in the general practice setting., Conclusions: General practice nurses recognise the importance of their role in providing smoking cessation care and consider that general practice settings are ideally positioned to deliver that care. Smoking cessation care provided by nurses varies according to systems and processes within general practice clinics and relationships with general practitioners. Vaping is an emerging issue and nurses are seeking information on how to address this with patients. There is opportunity to support nurses to provide improved smoking cessation care., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Jongebloed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: The objective of this study was to summarise the literature on current interventions available for carers of men with prostate cancer and analyse the outcomes of these interventions in supporting carers' needs., Methods: A systematic review was conducted, searching databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane, using terms related to prostate cancer, carers and interventions. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions for informal carers with or without patients were included. Data were analysed using descriptive and frequency statistics; interventions and their impact on carers' outcomes were reported on narratively. The SwiM guidelines were applied to guide data synthesis., Results: Overall, 24 articles were included in the review. On average, participants were spouses (92%) and women (97%). Interventions largely rwere delivered face-to-face (42%) or used a combination of face to face and online modalities (38%). Two-thirds (63%) showed a significant improvement in carer's outcomes including psychological, sexual, physical and relationship/marital. The majority of studies (79%) tailored contents to carers' circumstances, most within a couples counselling format. Over one-third (42%) of studies focused on a range of supportive care needs, most commonly were psychological (58%), sexual (42%) and informational (25%)., Conclusions: Interventions for carers of men with prostate cancer were largely face to face, patient-spouse focused and two-thirds had some measurable impact on carer's outcomes. Research continues to underserve other patient-carer roles, including non-spousal carers. Interventions delivered solely for carers are required to meet gaps in care, and determine the impact on carer outcomes. Further research and more targeted interventions are needed., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021249870., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)