Vascular access devices for prolonged intravenous therapy regimens in people diagnosed with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the relative effectiveness and vascular access device (VAD)-related complications of VADs in people requiring prolonged systemic anti-cancer treatment.

Vascular access device type for systemic anti-cancer therapies: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Vascular access devices (VADs) are the most common invasive procedure performed in acute medicine and cancer patients undergo multiple invasive vascular access procedures. Our aim is to identify the type of evidence available regarding the best choice of VAD for cancer patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT). In this article, the authors frame the scoping review protocol used, which will systematically report all published and unpublished literature around the use of VADs for the infusion of SACT in oncology. INCLUSION CRITERIA: For studies to be included, they must focus on people or populations aged 18 years or older and report on vascular access in cancer patients. The concept is the variety of VAD use in cancer and reported insertion and post-insertion complications. The context surrounds the intravenous treatment of SACT whether in a cancer centre or non-cancer setting. METHODS: The JBI scoping review methodology framework will guide the conduct of this scoping review. Electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline and Embase) will be searched. Grey literature sources and the reference lists of key studies will be reviewed to identify those appropriate for inclusion. No date limits will be used in the searches and studies will be limited to the English language. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion, and a third reviewer will arbitrate disagreements. All bibliographic data, study characteristics and indicators will be collected and charted using a data extraction tool.

Oral loratadine in the management of G-CSF-induced bone pain: a pilot study.

This pilot study aimed to ascertain if bone pain induced by granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can be alleviated or eliminated by oral antihistamine loratadine. Twelve patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy were included in the study. Daily pain increased between before treatment started and after cycle 1 in all patients. All 12 participants were started on loratadine on cycle 2; three patients were taking pain medications in addition to this as needed, which were ibruprofen (n=1) or tramadol (n=2). Pain decreased towards the later cycles after patients were started on loratadine in cycle 2, with the exception of one patient who also took tramadol as needed in cycle 3. Oral loratadine was found to be associated with pain reduction in patients with cancer receiving G-CSFs.

Prioritising Key Concepts for informed health choices in cancer: An evidence-based online educational programme.

Objective: The overabundance of health misinformation has undermined people's capacity to make evidence-based, informed choices about their health. Using the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KCs), we are developing a two-stage education programme, Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C), to provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make well-informed choices. Stage 1 seeks to prioritise the most relevant Key Concepts. Methods: A project group and a patient and carer participation group completed a two-round prioritisation process. The process involved disseminating pre-reading materials, training sessions, and a structured judgement form to evaluate concepts for inclusion. Data from each round were analysed to reach a consensus on the concepts to include. Results: Fourteen participants were recruited and completed the first-round prioritisation. Fifteen participants undertook the second-round prioritisation. Nine Key Concepts were selected for the programme across five training sessions and two consensus meetings. Conclusion: The prioritised concepts identified represent the most pertinent aspects of cancer-related information for those impacted by the disease. By incorporating these concepts into educational materials and communication strategies, healthcare providers and organisations can potentially help cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones to recognise and combat cancer-related misinformation more effectively. Innovation: This study introduces a participatory prioritisation process, which integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals with the insights of patients and carers, thereby enhancing the programme's relevance and applicability.

Prioritising Informed Health Choices Key Concepts for those impacted by cancer: a protocol.

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.