Impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency on healthcare professional delivery of opportunistic behaviour change interventions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The public health policy "Making Every Contact Count" (MECC) compels healthcare professionals to deliver health behaviour change interventions during routine consultations. As healthcare systems continue their recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency, supporting people to modify health behaviours is more important now than when the policy was introduced. The present study aims to: (a) examine changes in healthcare professionals' awareness of, and engagement with the policy over a five-year period, (b) examine the psychosocial drivers associated with delivering behaviour change interventions, and (c) identify targets to increase healthcare professionals' delivery of interventions. METHODS: Comparison of data from two independent representative surveys of NHS healthcare professionals working in the UK. In both surveys (July-September 2017; N = 1387, and February-March 2022; N = 1008), participants were asked to report: (1) awareness of the MECC policy, (2) the prevalence of MECC-related practice (perceived patient benefit, how often interventions were delivered, and time spent delivering interventions), and (3) perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to deliver behaviour change interventions. T- tests (independent-samples), MANOVA, multiple linear regression, and chi-square analyses were used to generate comparisons between the surveys. RESULTS: Awareness of the policy increased from 2017 (31.4%) to 2022 (52.0%). However, in 2022 compared with 2017, healthcare professionals reported (a) fewer patients would benefit from behaviour change interventions (49.1% versus 55.9%), (b) they delivered behaviour change interventions to a lower proportion of patients (38.0% versus 50.0%), and (c) they spent a lower proportion of the consultation time delivering interventions (26.5% versus 35.3%). Further, in 2022, compared with 2017, healthcare professionals reported fewer physical opportunities, fewer social opportunities, and fewer psychological capabilities to deliver behaviour change interventions. In the 2022 survey, perceptions of patient benefit and delivery of interventions was associated with greater perceptions of opportunities and motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour change interventions remain an important part of routine healthcare in the continued recovery from COVID-19 public health emergency, however reported engagement with MECC-related practices appears to have reduced over time. Future research should consider how healthcare professionals identify patients who might benefit from opportunistic behaviour change interventions, and to increase capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to deliver interventions during routine consultations.

Outcomes of delivering a fertility preservation service for women with cancer over a 12-year period at a UK assisted conception unit.

This service evaluation aimed to appraise the delivery of a fertility preservation service for women with cancer which was established in 2005 as part of an Assisted Conception Unit. First, the ACU-database was interrogated between 08/2005 and 01/2017; revealing 174 women received referrals over the 12-year period with a steady referral increase each year. Demographic analyses revealed factors, such as being partnered, to be strong indicators of whether women would seek FP or not. To improve service provision, women who had consented to be contacted for audit, administrative and research purposes, received questionnaires to ascertain their perspectives on the FP decision-making process, their outcomes and ACU after-care. The majority perceived their experience as excellent due to the care they received from ACU staff, speed and efficiency in service delivery. The increasing number of referrals since 2005 is reassuring. However, this audit also highlighted shortcomings of the service, such as limited awareness of the fertility counselling service and lack of after-care.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? There has been an increase in women diagnosed with cancer undergoing fertility preservation (FP) before starting potential gonadotoxic treatment. Offering FP to these women is essential as the ability to have future children is often perceived as equally as important as survivorship, and a source of hope for the future.What do the results of this study add? This study presents a service evaluation, across a 12-year period, of delivering FP services to women with cancer in one UK Assisted Conception Unit (ACU). Women's experiences of the service were evaluated to enhance service delivery and make recommendations for clinical practice.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or future research? The current service evaluation demonstrated increased rates of FP referral over a 12-year period for women with cancer. While this increasing number is reassuring and reflecting increased awareness among professionals and patients; shortcomings in the care pathway were also found: women reported limited opportunity to see fertility counsellors and desired better after care. This information may also be of benefit to other ACUs seeking to enhance and improve service provision in the care of women with cancer, contemplating fertility preservation.

Preserving fertility in women with cancer (PreFer): Decision-making and patient-reported outcomes in women offered egg and embryo freezing prior to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Women of childbearing age with new cancer diagnoses have to make rapid decisions about fertility preservation (FP) before starting cancer treatment (CT). The aim of the PreFer study was to explore this FP decision-making process and its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A prospective, mixed-methods design was used (questionnaires, in-depth interviews). Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifty-eight women with new cancer diagnoses were recruited. Comparisons were made between women who declined FP referral in oncology (Group1) and women who chose referral (Group2). Group 2 was further split into those who had some FP (2A) and those who did not (2B). Questionnaires and PROMs were administered prior to and after the fertility consultation, before the start of CT and 3 months post CT. Interviews were conducted with one participant from Group 2. RESULTS: HRQoL was negatively affected, particularly depression. Women's lack of understanding about the relationship between CT and fertility were evident. Five themes emerged from the interviews as barriers and facilitators to the FP decision-making process. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that better information and support resources aimed at women to support their decision making are needed, such as patient decision-aids. Women from Group 1 were found to suffer significantly worse depression compared with the general UK population, highlighting the need for psychological support in the FP care-pathway and for research exploring the contributions of depression and hopelessness to the decision-making process.

Cancer, Fertility and Me: Developing and Testing a Novel Fertility Preservation Patient Decision Aid to Support Women at Risk of Losing Their Fertility Because of Cancer Treatment.

Background: Women with a new cancer diagnosis face complex decisions about interventions aiming to preserve their fertility. Decision aids are more effective in supporting decision making than traditional information provision. We describe the development and field testing of a novel patient decision aid designed to support women to make fertility preservation treatment decisions around cancer diagnosis. Methods: A prospective, mixed-method, three stage study involving: 1) co-development of the resource in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary group of key stakeholders including oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and patient partners (n=24), 2) alpha testing with a group of cancer patients who had faced a fertility preservation treatment decision in the past (n=11), and oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and stakeholders (n=14) and, 3) beta testing with women in routine care who had received a recent diagnosis of cancer and were facing a fertility preservation treatment decision (n=41) and their oncology and fertility healthcare professionals (n=3). Ten service users recruited from a closed Breast Cancer Now Facebook group and the support group Cancer and Fertility UK also provided feedback on CFM via an online survey. Results: A 60-page paper prototype of the Cancer, Fertility and Me patient decision aid was initially developed. Alpha testing of the resource found that overall, it was acceptable to cancer patients, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders and it was considered a useful resource to support fertility preservation treatment decision-making. However, the healthcare professionals felt that the length of the patient decision aid, and elements of its content may be a barrier to its use. Subsequently, the prototype was reduced to 40 pages. During beta testing of the shortened version in routine care, women who received the resource described its positive impact on their ability to make fertility preservation decisions and support them at a stressful time. However, practical difficulties emerged which impacted upon its wider dissemination in clinical practice and limited some elements of the evaluation planned. Discussion: Women receiving the decision aid within the cancer treatment pathway found it helped them engage with decisions about fertility preservation, and make better informed, values-based care plans with oncology and fertility teams. More work is needed to address access and implementation of this resource as part of routine oncology care pathways.

What Is the Burden of Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy in Adult Patients With Primary Immunodeficiencies? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs) are a group of heterogeneous rare disorders, whereby the immune system is missing or not functioning adequately. For patients requiring treatment, the most common option is immunoglobulin replacement therapy (Ig). Treatment of PIDs is simultaneously associated with both improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and increased treatment burden. OBJECTIVES: This review sought to review studies investigating the burden of Ig treatment, synthesize evidence in relation to administration routes (subcutaneous or intravenous) and instruments used, as well as make recommendations for clinical and research applications in this area for patients aged 16 years and older. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Sifting of titles was performed by two reviewers, and the assessment of full-text articles by three. From a database which contained 3,770 unique results, 67 full texts were reviewed. Eventually, 17 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria, and included in this review. Due to data heterogeneity, a narrative, descriptive synthesis of the evidence was undertaken. RESULTS: Most studies were carried out in the USA/North America, used a prospective observational design and involved patients with common variable immune deficiency. Four studies measured the burden of receiving IVIg therapy and 13 measured SCIg therapy. A wide range of measures, primarily designed to measure aspects of treatment satisfaction (e.g., life quality index or a slightly modified version) and HRQoL (e.g., The Short Form-36) had been used. CONCLUSION: Lack of a parallel control group in most studies meant that changes in outcomes could be due to factors other than changes in the treatment regimen. However, overall, PID patients appeared to report little Ig treatment burden and were satisfied with either modality. However, patient preference appeared to be the delivery of the Ig treatment in the patient's home and SCIg was preferred after switching from IVIg therapy. Individual differences appeared to affect treatment preference and therefore understanding the decision support needs of PID patients facing IG treatment choices would be valuable. Using a questionnaire specifically designed to measure the burden of Ig treatment from the patient's perspective is recommended in future research.