Evaluation of a specialized oncology nursing supportive care intervention in newly diagnosed breast and colorectal cancer patients following surgery: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Better coordination of supportive services during the early phases of cancer care has been proposed to improve the care experience of patients. We conducted a randomized trial to test a community-based nurse-led coordination of care intervention in cancer patients. METHODS: Surgical practices were cluster randomized to a control group involving usual care practices or a standardized nursing intervention consisting of an in-person supportive care assessment with ongoing support to meet identified needs, including linkage to community services. Newly diagnosed breast and colorectal cancer patients within 7 days of cancer surgery were eligible. The primary outcome was the patient-reported outcome (PRO) of continuity of care (CCCQ) measured at 3 weeks. Secondary outcomes included unmet supportive care needs (SCNS), quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), health resource utilization, and level of uncertainty with care trajectory (MUIS) at 3 and/or 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 121 breast and 72 colorectal patients were randomized through 28 surgical practices. There was a small improvement in the informational domain of continuity of care (difference 0.29 p = 0.05) and a trend to less emergency room use (15.8 vs 7.1%) (p = 0.07). There were no significant differences between groups on unmet need, quality of life, or uncertainty. CONCLUSION: We did not find substantial gaps in the PROs measured immediately following surgery for breast and colorectal cancer patients. The results of this study support a more targeted approach based on need and inform future research focused on improving navigation during the initial phases of cancer treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182234. SONICS-Effectiveness of Specialist Oncology Nursing.

Understanding the needs of colorectal cancer patients during the pre-diagnosis phase.

Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) face a number of challenges leading up to diagnosis; however, research is limited regarding their specific needs during the pre-diagnosis period. A multicenter cross-sectional survey was conducted to elicit information about the CRC experience during the pre-diagnosis phase. Across the three sites, 104 eligible patients were approached, and 82 patients completed the survey, for a total response rate of 78.9%. The needs most identified by participants during the pre-diagnosis period were informational (31.6%) and emotional (20.3%) needs; social needs were rated as the least important need for these patients (7%). The majority (84.0%) reported that these needs were met. Participants reported feeling shocked or overwhelmed on learning of their diagnosis (57.1%) and high levels of anxiety during this time (40.0%). The majority (77.9%) of participants reported that they were not directed to any resources to help address their anxiety. Informational and emotional needs are identified as the most important needs during the pre-diagnosis phase, and for most these needs are being met; however, some participants are experiencing high levels of anxiety without access to appropriate resources. Further work is required to understand the optimal mechanisms to address identified needs during this pre-diagnosis period and to assess the potential benefits and costs of addressing these needs.

Understanding the needs of lung cancer patients during the pre-diagnosis phase.

Patients with lung cancer have numerous and varying needs spanning across the cancer trajectory; however, only limited research has focused specifically on the pre-diagnosis phase. A multicentre cross-sectional survey was conducted to explore the experience of lung cancer patients during the pre-diagnosis phase. High levels of anxiety were reported by many participants (45.6 %). Informational (32.1 %), and emotional (24.1 %) needs were reported as most important; the majority (89.0 %) reported these needs were met. Most participants sought information throughout, with many (38.6 %) rating their oncology health care providers to be the best source of information. The majority (70.0 %) reported that they were not directed to any resources to help address their anxiety. During pre-diagnosis, informational and emotional needs appear most important, and for the majority, these were reportedly met. Although many experienced high levels of anxiety, few were directed to resources to address it.

Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision.

PURPOSE: Few interventions have been designed and tested to improve recruitment to clinical trials in oncology. The multiple factors influencing patients' decisions have made the prioritization of specific interventions challenging. The present study was undertaken to identify the independent predictors of a cancer patient's decision to enter a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A list of factors from the medical literature was augmented with a series of focus groups involving cancer patients, physicians, and clinical research associates (CRAs). A series of questionnaires was developed with items based on these factors and were administered concurrently to 189 cancer patients, their physicians, and CRAs following the patient's decision regarding trial entry. Forward logistic regression modeling was performed using the items significantly correlated (by univariate analysis) with the decision to enter a clinical trial. RESULTS: A number of items were significantly correlated with the patient's decision. In the multivariate logistic regression model, the patient's perception of personal benefit was the most important, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.08 (P < .05). CRA-related items involving supportive aspects of the decision-making process were also important. These included whether the CRA helped with the decision (OR = 1.71; P < .05), and whether the decision was hard for the patient to make (OR = 0.52; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Strategies that better address the potential benefits of trial entry may result in improved accrual. Interventions or aids that focus on the supportive aspects of the decision-making process while respecting the need for information and patient autonomy may also lead to meaningful improvements in accrual.

Are cancer-related decision aids effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve communication between health professionals and patients, and to involve patients in decisions about their health care. Cancer-related decisions can be difficult due to problems in communicating complex information about prognosis and the modest benefits of available treatments. We conducted a systematic review of cancer-related DAs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer-related DAs about screening, prevention, and treatment decision making were included. We completed a comprehensive literature search and conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also conducted a meta regression to explore heterogeneity of effect estimates. RESULTS: We identified 34 RCTs of DAs in a screening (n = 22 trials) or preventive/treatment (n = 12 trials) context. DAs significantly improved knowledge about screening options when compared to usual practice (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P < .0001). A similar effect on knowledge was also found for preventive/treatment options (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P < .0001). Overall, general anxiety was not increased in most trials and was significantly reduced in a screening context. Decisional conflict was reduced overall but not when screening and preventive/treatment studies were analyzed separately. There were few differences between different types of DAs. CONCLUSION: Cancer-related DAs are effective in increasing patient knowledge compared with usual practice without increasing anxiety particularly in the area of cancer screening. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of DAs in the prevention and treatment context.