Search

Objective. Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) is a patient-centered questionnaire that allows cancer patients to identify and quantify the severity of their “concerns” and “wellbeing,” as opposed to using a predetermined list. MYCaW administration is brief and aids in prioritizing treatment approaches. Our goal was to assess the convergent validity and responsiveness of MYCaW scores over time, the generalizability of the existing qualitative coding framework in different complementary and integrative oncology settings and content validity. Methods. Baseline and 6-week follow-up data (n = 82) from MYCaW and FACIT-SpEx questionnaires were collected for a service evaluation of the Living Well with the Impact of Cancer course at Penny Brohn Cance Care. MYCaW convergent validity was determined using Spearman’s rank correlation test, and responsiveness indices assessed score changes over time. The existing qualitative coding framework was reviewed using a new data set (n = 158) and coverage of concern categories compared with items of existing outcome measures. Results. Good correlation between MYCaW and FACIT-SpEx score changes were achieved (r = −0.57, P ≥ .01). MYCaW Profile and Concern scores were highly responsive to change: standardized response mean = 1.02 and 1.08; effect size = 1.26 and 1.22. MYCaW change scores showed the anticipated gradient of change according to clinically relevant degrees of change. Categories, including “spirituality,” “weight change,” and “practical concerns” were added to the coding framework to improve generalizability. Conclusions. MYCaW scores were highly responsive to change, allowing personalized patient outcomes to be quantified; the qualitative coding framework appears generalizable across different integrative oncology settings and has broader coverage of patient-identified concerns compared with existing cancer-related patient-reported outcome measures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The term "whole-person cancer care"-an approach that addresses the needs of the person as well as treating the disease-is more widely understood in the United Kingdom than its synonym "integrative oncology." The National Health Service (NHS) provides free access to care for all, which makes it harder to prioritize NHS funding of whole-person medicine, where interventions may be multimodal and lacking in cost-effectiveness data. Despite this, around 30% of cancer patients are known to use some form of complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). This is virtually never medically led, and usually without the support or even the knowledge of their oncology teams, with the exception of one or two large cancer centers. UK oncology services are, however, starting to be influenced from three sides; first, by well-developed and more holistic palliative care services; second, by directives from central government via the sustainable health care agenda; and third, by increasing pressure from patient-led groups and cancer charities. CAM remains unlikely to be provided through the NHS, but nutrition, physical activity, mindfulness, and stress management are already becoming a core part of the NHS "Living With and Beyond Cancer" agenda. This supports cancer survivors into stratified pathways of care, based on individual, self-reported holistic needs and risk assessments, which are shared between health care professionals and patients. Health and well-being events are being built into cancer care pathways, designed to activate patients into self-management and support positive lifestyle change. Those with greater needs can be directed toward appropriate external providers, where many examples of innovative practice exist. These changes in policy and vision for the NHS present an opportunity for integrative oncology to develop further and to reach populations who would, in many other countries, remain underserved or hard to reach by whole-person approaches., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)