Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used as an assessment and monitoring tool in clinical practice. However, patient adherence to PROMs completions are typically not well documented or explained in published studies and reports. Through a collaboration between the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) Patient Engagement and QOL in Clinical Practice Special Interest Groups (SIGs) case studies were collated as a platform to explore how adherence can be evaluated and understood. Case studies were drawn from across a range of clinically and methodologically diverse PROMs activities. RESULTS: The case studies identified that the influences on PROMs adherence vary. Key drivers include PROMs administeration methods within a service and wider system, patient capacity to engage and clinician engagement with PROMs information. It was identified that it is important to  evaluate  PROMs integration and adherence from multiple perspectives. CONCLUSION: PROM completion rates are an important indicator of patient adherence. Future research prioritizing an understanding of PROMs completion rates by patients is needed.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: A multi-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. AIM: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. DESIGN: Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study. METHODS: A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020-2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5-10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. CONCLUSION: Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. IMPACT: Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. REPORTING METHOD: Not applicable. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: Consumer led co-creation.

PURPOSE: Children with chronic and complex health conditions frequently need intravenous devices. The current approach to intravenous device selection, insertion, and monitoring is inconsistent, and healthcare consumers are often negatively affected by siloed health information, and poor future planning. Despite child- and family-centred care being recognised as a pillar of paediatric nursing care, limited implementation for vascular access device planning and management is evident. DESIGN AND METHODS: To address this, we conducted a multi-phased approach to co-create, then evaluate, a mobile health (mHealth) application: IV Passport. Co-creation involved a prioritisation survey, followed by a Passport advisory panel consensus meeting. Following confirmation of the required content and features of the Passport, the mHealth application was designed and content validation achieved via survey. RESULTS: The prioritisation survey yielded recommendations for seven features (e.g., graphical presentations of current/past devices). Content for nine device types (e.g., totally implanted ports) was suggested, each with 10 related items (e.g., insertion site). Content items for device-associated complications, future vascular access plans, and educational resources were also suggested. Following design, the application was released through Apple and Android platforms; and adapted to a paper version. Content validation was established; 100% strongly agreed the application was easy to use; 80% agreed/strongly agreed that they would recommend the Passport to others. CONCLUSION: IV Passport embodies effective child- and family-centred care through consumer co-creation to empower patients and families manage vascular access devices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: IV Passport remains active; and can be utilised across many healthcare settings and patient populations.

Exploring equity in cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for culturally and linguistically diverse migrant populations living in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is strong international evidence documenting inequities in cancer care for migrant populations. In Australia, there is limited information regarding cancer equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) migrant populations, defined in this study as migrants born in a country or region where English is not the primary language. This study sought to quantify and compare cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures between CALD migrant and Australian born cancer populations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilising electronic medical records at a major, tertiary hospital. Inpatient and outpatient encounters were assessed for all individuals diagnosed with a solid tumour malignancy in the year 2016 and followed for a total of five years. Individuals were screened for inclusion in the CALD migrant or Australian born cohort. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures. Sociodemographic measures included age, sex, post code, employment, region of birth and marital status. RESULTS: A total of 523 individuals were included, with 117 (22%) in the CALD migrant cohort and 406 (78%) in the Australian-born cohort. CALD migrants displayed a statistically significant difference in time from diagnosis to commencement of first treatment for radiation (P = 0.03) and surgery (P = 0.02) and had 16.6 times higher odds of declining recommended chemotherapy than those born in Australia (P = 0.00). Survivorship indicators favoured CALD migrants in mean time from diagnosis to death, however their odds of experiencing disease progression during the study period were 1.6 times higher than those born in Australia (P = 0.04). Service utilisation measures displayed that CALD migrants exhibited higher numbers of unplanned admissions (P = < 0.00), longer cumulative length of those admissions (P = < 0.00) and higher failure to attend scheduled appointments (P = < 0.00). CONCLUSION: This novel study has produced valuable findings in the areas of treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for a neglected population in cancer research. The differences identified suggest potential issues of institutional inaccessibility. Future research is needed to examine the clinical impacts of these health differences in the field of cancer care, including the social and institutional determinants of influence.

How can we meet the needs of patients, their families and their communities? A qualitative study including clinicians, consumer representatives, patients, and community members.

BACKGROUND: The Diversity Working Group was formed in response to Australian Quality and Safety Health Care Standards that require organisations plan service delivery that incorporates information about the diversity of consumers, and those at higher risk of harm. METHODS: A qualitative gap analysis was conducted by a team from varied professional backgrounds including a clinician researcher, a nurse researcher with expertise in culturally and linguistically diverse care and a consumer representative with expertise in advocacy and carer representation. Qualitative questions were co-designed, using a person-centred care lens. Community organisation members, and clinicians and patients from both ambulatory and inpatient areas were approached. Responses were coded independently and synthesised using a Framework Methodology. RESULTS: In total 3 community organisation members, 40 clinicians and 30 patients consented to participate in the qualitative study over a period of three weeks. There were three key themes across responses, 'What are diverse needs?'; 'Assigning people to a group does not address a need'; 'Unplanned care makes people feel vulnerable'. Those patients who are isolated, for any number of reasons, were identified as at greater risk of harm. CONCLUSION: Taking a person-centred approach can potentially better understand the needs of patients and communities so that this information can be incorporated into health service delivery. Resources are needed to support patients and their families at times of transition care, particularly when care is unplanned.

The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: a report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force.

AIMS: Proxy reports are often used when patients are unable to self-report. It is unclear how proxy measures are currently in use in adult health care and research settings. We aimed to describe how proxy reports are used in these settings, including the use of measures developed specifically for proxy reporting in adult health populations. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, PsycTESTS, CINAHL and EMBASE from database inception to February 2018. Search terms included a combination of terms for quality of life and health outcomes, proxy-reporters, and health condition terms. The data extracted included clinical context, the name of the proxy measure(s) used and other descriptive data. We determined whether the measures were developed specifically for proxy use or were existing measures adapted for proxy use. RESULTS: The database search identified 17,677 possible articles, from which 14,098 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 11,763 were excluded and 2335 articles were reviewed in full, with 880 included for data extraction. The most common clinical settings were dementia (30%), geriatrics (15%) and cancer (13%). A majority of articles (51%) were paired studies with proxy and patient responses for the same person on the same measure. Most paired studies (77%) were concordance studies comparing patient and proxy responses on these measures. DISCUSSION: Most published research using proxies has focused on proxy-patient concordance. Relatively few measures used in research with proxies were specifically developed for proxy use. Future work is needed to examine the performance of measures specifically developed for proxies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO No. CRD42018103179.

The utility of the implementation science framework "Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services" (i-PARIHS) and the facilitator role for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a medical oncology outpatient department.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the utility of the implementation science framework "Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services" (i-PARIHS) for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into a medical oncology outpatient department. The i-PARIHS framework identifies four core constructs for implementation, including Facilitation, Innovation, Context and Recipients. METHODS: A pilot study used the i-PARIHS framework to identify PROM implementation barriers and enablers to inform facilitation support strategies, such as training clinicians and staff, workflow support, technical support and audit and feedback. Pre- and post-implementation surveys were completed by 83 and 72 staff, respectively, (nurses, doctors and allied health), to assess perceived knowledge, enablers, barriers and utility of PROMs; and acceptability of the PROM intervention was also assessed post-implementation. RESULTS: Important barriers included time constraints and previous experiences with technology. Enablers included good leadership support and a culture of learning. Facilitation strategies were used to overcome barriers identified in the i-PARIHS core domains. Compared to before the intervention, staff surveys showed improvement in perceived usefulness, perceived understanding and interpretation skills for PROMs. Staff perceptions about lack of time to use PROMs during visits remained a major perceived barrier post-implementation. CONCLUSION: The i-PARIHS framework was useful for guiding the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology care. The four core i-PARIHS constructs (Facilitation, Innovation, Context and Recipients) identified factors that directly impacted implementation, with Facilitation having a particularly important role to overcome these barriers. Oncology clinics and health systems considering implementing PROMs should consider having a dedicated Facilitator available during PROM implementation.

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

AIMS: A proxy is someone other than a patient who reports a patient's outcomes as if they are the patient. Due to known discordance with patient reports, proxies are often not recommended in clinical trials; however, proxies may be needed in certain research contexts. We aimed to identify and describe trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) with proxy-reported endpoints. METHODS: ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with proxy-reported endpoints. Primary and secondary endpoints for each trial retrieved by the search were individually coded (proxy-reported: yes/no), and trials with confirmed proxy-reported endpoints were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of 13,666 registered trials, 469 (3.4%) included a proxy-reported endpoint (867 individual proxy-reported endpoints in total: 62% family member proxy, 22% health professional). Proxy endpoint inclusion did not significantly increase over time (r = 0.18, p = 0.59). Mental health (11.5%), stroke (10.3%) and neurological (8.3%) trials had the highest proportion of trials using proxies. Of the 469 trials, 123 (26.2%) studies involved paediatric patients. DISCUSSION: Proxy-reported endpoints are included in a small but notable number of studies, which may indicate other types of outcomes are used for patients unable to self-report, or that these patients are under-researched.

What is needed by staff to implement PROMs into routine oncology care? A qualitative study with the multi-disciplinary team.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to identify strategies to implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine oncology outpatients' clinical care. METHODS: Qualitative focus groups were conducted with staff from multiple disciplines using a semistructured interview guide, with supporting data collected in field notes. Data were analysed using a Directed Content Analysis guided by an implementation science framework. The synthesis of the extracted data aimed to identify key requirements which correspond to intrinsic enablers and barriers for implementation. RESULTS: 52 staff members from the multi-disciplinary team participated. Data extracted showed five key themes and three key requirements regarding implementation of PROMs. Staff would consider using PROMs if there was strong research evidence that demonstrates benefits for patient outcomes, if PROM data was relevant to current clinical practice, and if applied appropriately in the specific setting. These findings add pragmatic detail and new knowledge to the current evidence on pathways to PROM implementation. This data can be used to inform implementation of PROMs into health services. CONCLUSION: Staff have valuable tacit knowledge of what works in practice that offers a unique opportunity to increase successful implementation of a PROM intervention for patient symptom reporting.

Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

AIMS: It is important to understand the number, types and regions of trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to appreciate how patient experiences have been considered in studies of health and interventions. Twenty-seven percent of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2013) included PROs; however, a regional breakdown was not provided and no reviews have been conducted of the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). We aimed to identify trials registered with ANZCTR with PRO endpoints and describe their characteristics. METHODS: ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with PRO endpoints. Search terms included PRO measures listed in Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life Instrument Database and Grid-Enabled Measures, as well as generic PRO terms (e.g. "quality of life" (QOL)). Trial endpoints were individually coded using an established framework to identify trials with PROs for the analysis. RESULTS: Of 13,666 registered trials, 6168 (45.1%) included a PRO. The proportion of studies including PROs increased between 2006 and 2016 (r = 0.74, p = 0.009). Among the 6168 trials, there were 17,961 individual PRO endpoints, including symptoms/functional outcomes/condition-specific QOL (65.6%), generic QOL (13.2%), patient-reported experiences (9.9%), patient-reported behaviours (7.9%). Mental health was the most common category (99.8% included PROs), followed by physical medicine/rehabilitation (65.6%), musculoskeletal (63.5%), public health (63.1%), and cancer (54.2%). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest growing use of PROs in the assessment of health and interventions in ANZ. Our review identifies trial categories with limited patient-reported information and provides a basis for future work on the impact of PRO findings in clinical care.

Correction to: Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

In the original publication of the article, the sentence "The ANZCTR is the fifth largest trial registry internationally, with 21,330 registered trials as at January 2018 [5]" in the Introduction section was published incorrectly.

Doripenem population pharmacokinetics and dosing requirements for critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration.

OBJECTIVES: Doripenem is a newer carbapenem with little data available to guide effective dosing during renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to determine the population pharmacokinetics of doripenem in critically ill patients undergoing continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) for acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: This was an observational pharmacokinetic study in 12 infected critically ill adult patients with AKI undergoing CVVHDF and receiving 500 mg of doripenem intravenously every 8 h as a 60 min infusion. Serial blood samples were taken on 2 days of treatment and used for population pharmacokinetic analysis with S-ADAPT. RESULTS: The median (IQR) age was 62 (53-71) years, the median (IQR) weight was 77 (67-96) kg and the median (IQR) APACHE II score was 29 (19-32). The median blood, dialysate and replacement fluid rates were 200, 1000 and 1000 mL/h, respectively. A two-compartment linear model with doripenem clearance described by CVVHDF, renal or non-renal mechanisms was most appropriate. The mean value for total doripenem clearance was 4.46 L/h and volume of distribution was 38.0 L. Doripenem clearance by CVVHDF was significantly correlated with the replacement fluid flow rate and accounted for ∼30%-37% of total clearance. A dose of 500 mg intravenously every 8 h achieved favourable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics for all patients up to an MIC of 4 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first paper describing the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of doripenem in critically ill patients with AKI receiving CVVHDF. A dose of 500 mg intravenously every 8 h was appropriate for our CVVHDF settings for infections caused by susceptible bacteria.

Factors Influencing Integration and Usability of Model-Informed Precision Dosing Software in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial dosing in critically ill patients is challenging and model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) software may be used to optimize dosing in these patients. However, few intensive care units (ICU) currently adopt MIPD software use. OBJECTIVES: To determine the usability of MIPD software perceived by ICU clinicians and identify implementation barriers and enablers of software in the ICU. METHODS: Clinicians (pharmacists and medical staff) who participated in a wider multicenter study using MIPD software were invited to participate in this mixed-method study. Participants scored the industry validated Post-study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ, assessing software usability) and Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2, assessing factors impacting software acceptance) survey. Semistructured interviews were used to explore survey responses. The framework approach was used to identify factors influencing software usability and integration into the ICU from the survey and interview data. RESULTS: Seven of the eight eligible clinicians agreed to participate in the study. The PSSUQ usability scores ranked poorer than the reference norms (2.95 vs. 2.62). The TAM2 survey favorably ranked acceptance in all domains, except image. Qualitatively, key enablers to workflow integration included clear and accessible data entry, visual representation of recommendations, involvement of specialist clinicians, and local governance of software use. Barriers included rigid data entry systems and nonconformity of recommendations to local practices. CONCLUSION: Participants scored the MIPD software below the threshold that implies good usability. Factors such as availability of software support by specialist clinicians was important to participants while rigid data entry was found to be a deterrent.

The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS: An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS: From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION: PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Clinical research nursing pathways: The development and evaluation of a nursing research internship program using the RE-AIM framework.

Background: In 2018 a Nursing Research Internship program was started within a major referral and tertiary teaching centre in Australia. Aim: We aimed to evaluate the first 12 months of the program using an implementation science framework. Methods: This was a qualitative study. Following ethical approval n = 20 semi -structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants included nurses with clinical, research and management roles who had engaged in or supported a Nursing Research Internship program. The Framework Method was conducted to analyse the findings. Results: Key themes identified included 'What is the impact of a Nursing Research Internship program?'; 'Why do a Nursing Research Internship program?'; 'How do we do a Nursing Research Internship program?'; 'How do we sustain a Nursing Research Internship program?'. Positive impacts were identified for clinical nurses and their teams, for the hospital and health service, and for patients and families. Identified key components included protected research time, specialist support (including library, statistics, health economist, implementation scientist), regulatory support (ethics and governance procedures) and access to a computer and IT resources. The Nursing Research Internship program required support from nurse clinicians, nurse managers and nurse academics. Conclusion: A structured Nursing Research Internship program supports clinical nurses to answer research questions identified directly from clinical practice.

Exploring Unmet Needs in Prostate Cancer Care: A Cross-sectional Descriptive Study.

Background and objective: Prostate cancer, the most common cancer among men worldwide, has significant impact on quality of life. Supportive care needs for those affected by prostate cancer are not well understood. This study aims to describe patient-reported unmet needs and explore supportive care priorities of men treated for prostate cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all men who had accessed prostate cancer services (including surgical, radiation, and medical oncology treatment modalities) at a tertiary hospital. The survey included qualitative questions exploring patient experience and a validated patient-reported outcome measure (Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34). Clinical information was collected. Analyses included, descriptive statistics, multivariate logistic regression models and qualitative analyses using a framework method. Key findings and limitations: A total of 162 participants provided survey data. Domains about information, self-management, and sexual function were the highest ranked items with unmet needs. A qualitative analysis also identified "relationships", "information", and "the value of hindsight" constructs. Participants who identified three or more unmet needs expressed treatment regret (odds ratio 5.92, 1.98-22.23, p = 0.01). Conclusions and clinical implications: Understanding the unmet needs of patients may better inform supportive care interventions that address what is important to patients. Importantly, participants valued relationships. There may be opportunities to better meet the needs of patients by improving access to information and self-management resources, particularly around sexuality. Further research is warranted. Patient summary: Prostate cancer and its treatment impacts are not well understood. Prioritisation of relationships and improving access to information and self-management resources are important. Further attention to prostate cancer supportive care in clinical practice is needed.

Using Implementation Science in Nursing Research.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical research continues to build knowledge that can potentially improve clinical and health service outcomes; however, integrating evidence into routine care is challenging, resulting in a knowledge practice gap. The field of implementation science is a resource available for nurses to translate evidence into their practice. This article aims to provide nurses with an overview of implementation science, illustrate its value integrating evidence into practice, and show how it can be applied with high rigor in nursing research practice. DATA SOURCES: A narrative synthesis of the implementation science literature was conducted. A series of case studies were purposively selected to demonstrate the application of commonly used implementation theories, models, and frameworks across health care settings relevant to nursing. These case studies demonstrate how the theoretical framework was applied and how the outcomes of the work reduced the knowledge practice gap. CONCLUSION: Implementation science theoretical approaches have been used by nurses and multidisciplinary teams to better understand the gap between knowledge and practice for better informed implementation. These can be used to understand the processes involved, identify the determinants at play, and undertake an effective evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: By using implementation science research practice, nurses can also build a strong foundation of evidence about nursing clinical practice. As an approach, implementation science is practical and can optimize the valuable nursing resource.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on genitourinary and prostate cancer care and clinical trials: A qualitative exploration of the Australian and New Zealand experience.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study aimed to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from March to November 2020 on healthcare delivery and clinical trials for genitourinary (GU) cancers in Australia. METHODS: Annually a pre-conference workshop is hosted by the Australian New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group for supportive care health professionals. In November 2020, those that selected to attend were invited to participate in a focus group. Workshop and focus group discussions were recorded and transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Seventy-two individuals involved in GU cancer care and clinical trials took part. Participants described negative changes to GU cancer care and clinical trials from the pandemic due to reduced clinical services and increased wait times. Trial recruitment was paused temporarily during lockdowns, and standard treatment protocols were used to limit hospital visits. Trial process changes included electronic capture of informed consent, home delivery of oral medications, and delegations of assessments. These changes increased administrative activity for clinical trial teams and Human Research Ethics Committees. A transition to telehealth enabled continuity of service delivery and trials but reduced the opportunity for face-to-face patient consultations with increasing concern about the failure to detect supportive care needs. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has prompted a critical review of service delivery and clinical trials for people with GU cancers.

Rethinking cancer prevention for migrant populations in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cohort study comparing culturally and linguistically diverse and Australian born cancer patients.

International evidence suggests migrants experience significant cancer inequities. In Australia, there is limited information assessing equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) migrant populations, particularly in cancer prevention. Cancer inequities are often explained by individualistic, behavioural risk factors; however, scarce research has quantified or compared engagement with cancer prevention strategies. A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilising the electronic medical records at a major, quaternary hospital. Individuals were screened for inclusion in the CALD migrant or Australian born cohort. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts. 523 individuals were followed (22% were CALD migrants and 78% Australian born). Results displayed that CALD migrants made up a larger proportion of infection-related cancers. Compared to Australian born, CALD migrants had lower odds of having a smoking history (OR = 0.63, CI 0.401-0.972); higher odds of 'never drinking' (OR = 3.4, CI 1.473-7.905); and lower odds of having breast cancers detected via screening (OR = 6.493, CI 2.429-17.359). Findings affirm CALD migrants' low participation in screening services but refute the assertion that CALD migrants are less engaged in positive health practices, enabling cancer prevention. Future research should examine social, environmental, and institutional processes and move beyond individualistic, behavioural explanations for cancer inequities.

Scoping to analyze oncology trial participation in Australia.

Equity in oncology clinical trial participation has been declared a global priority. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere and managed to maintain high clinical trial activity during the COVID pandemic. Despite these successes, there is paucity of understanding about what influences clinical trial participation in Australia. In the international context, systematic reviews have highlighted that sociodemographic barriers, access to health care, clinical trial inclusion criteria, and attitudes of physicians and patients are factors which influence oncology trial participation. Exploring the factors in Australian health services which influence trial participation is now of significant importance. The lack of clear evidence directly highlights a need to assess the factors that influence oncology trial participation in Australia. We call for review of existing data to identify future directions in Australia which will potentially give deeper insights for the international clinical trial community.