Exploring patient and staff member views on a 'consent for contact' system for sexual health research: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment in sexual health research is challenging. This study explores the potential of a Consent for Contact system (C4C) - generic consent for research contact - to improve participant recruitment and engagement in sexual health research. Our objectives were to understand patient and staff understanding of research, their views on a separate C4C system, and their preferences for its acceptability in a sexual health clinic setting. METHODS: A two-stage study was conducted at a large urban UK sexual health clinic from November 2021 to July 2022. Stage one involved a self-completed questionnaire administered to all patients and staff. In Stage 2, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) further explored patient concerns and preferences. Survey data were analysed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test and thematic analysis was applied to free-text responses and SSIs. RESULTS: A total of 205/300 patient (68%) and 41/280 staff questionnaires (15%) were completed. Motivations for research participation included altruism and personal interest. Statistically significant differences were found between patients' and staff members' concerns on confidentiality and anticipated feeling of pressure to participate. The majority of staff (n = 38, 93%) and half of patients (n = 100, 49%) supported implementation of a sexual health C4C system. Participants recognised the potential benefits of a sexual health C4C system, including enhanced privacy and increased research opportunities. Concerns were raised about stigma, terminology, and signing-up methods. CONCLUSION: This study found the C4C system has the potential to enhance participant recruitment and engagement in sexual health research, but implementation support is narrowly divided with concerns around privacy and sign-up processes. These insights call for a patient-centred design approach, emphasising clear communication and privacy. Future research should focus on implementing and evaluating a sexual health C4C system to further explore their effectiveness and acceptability in different contexts.

Changes in hospital mortality in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic (ISARIC-CCP-UK): a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than many other patient groups. However, how this risk evolved during the pandemic remains unclear. We aimed to determine, on the basis of the UK national pandemic protocol, how factors influencing hospital mortality from COVID-19 could differentially affect patients undergoing cancer treatment. We also examined changes in hospital mortality and escalation of care in patients on cancer treatment during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients aged older than 19 years and admitted to 306 health-care facilities in the UK with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (CCP) across the UK from April 23, 2020, to Feb 28, 2022; this analysis included all patients in the complete dataset when the study closed. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality, comparing patients on cancer treatment and those without cancer. The study was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref: 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028), and is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN66726260). FINDINGS: 177 871 eligible adult patients either with no history of cancer (n=171 303) or on cancer treatment (n=6568) were enrolled; 93 205 (52·4%) were male, 84 418 (47·5%) were female, and in 248 (13·9%) sex or gender details were not specified or data were missing. Patients were followed up for a median of 13 (IQR 6-21) days. Of the 6568 patients receiving cancer treatment, 2080 (31·7%) died at 30 days, compared with 30 901 (18·0%) of 171 303 patients without cancer. Patients aged younger than 50 years on cancer treatment had the highest age-adjusted relative risk (hazard ratio [HR] 5·2 [95% CI 4·0-6·6], p<0·0001; vs 50-69 years 2·4 [2·2-2·6], p<0·0001; 70-79 years 1·8 [1·6-2·0], p<0·0001; and >80 years 1·5 [1·3-1·6], p<0·0001) but a lower absolute risk (51 [6·7%] of 763 patients <50 years died compared with 459 [30·2%] of 1522 patients aged >80 years). In-hospital mortality decreased for all patients during the pandemic but was higher for patients on cancer treatment than for those without cancer throughout the study period. INTERPRETATION: People with cancer have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than those without cancer. Patients younger than 50 years with cancer treatment have the highest relative risk of death. Continued action is needed to mitigate the poor outcomes in patients with cancer, such as through optimising vaccination, long-acting passive immunisation, and early access to therapeutics. These findings underscore the importance of the ISARIC-WHO pandemic preparedness initiative. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.

Geriatric Oncology as an Unmet Workforce Training Need in the United Kingdom-A Narrative Review by the British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies (BONUS) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) UK Country Group.

Cancer is a disease associated with ageing. Managing cancer in older adults may prove challenging owing to pre-existing frailty, comorbidity, and wider holistic needs, as well as the unclear benefits and harms of standard treatment options. With the ongoing advances in oncology and the increasing complexity of treating older adults with cancer, the geriatric oncology field must be a priority for healthcare systems in education, research, and clinical practice. However, geriatric oncology is currently not formally taught in undergraduate education or postgraduate training programmes in the United Kingdom (UK). In this commentary, we outline the landscape of geriatric oncology undergraduate education and postgraduate training for UK doctors. We highlight current challenges and opportunities and provide practical recommendations for better preparing the medical workforce to meet the needs of the growing population of older adults with cancer. This includes key outcomes to be considered for inclusion within undergraduate and postgraduate curricula.

Benefits of Mentoring in Oncology Education for Mentors and Mentees: Pre-Post Interventional Study of the British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' National Oncology Mentorship Scheme.

BACKGROUND: Formal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement. OBJECTIVE: This study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor. METHODS: The British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data. RESULTS: Of the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring. CONCLUSIONS: British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction.