An effort to improve the collection of patient-generated data: readability and understandability of patient-reported outcomes measures in a survivorship cohort.

PURPOSE: In this study, we evaluated readability and understandability of nine French-language Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) that are currently used in a contemporary longitudinal cohort of breast cancer survivors as part of an effort to improve equity in cancer care and research. METHODS: Readability of PROMs was assessed using the Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRES), the Gunning's Fog Index (FOG), and the FRY graphics. Readability was considered ideal if mean score ≤ 6th-grade level and acceptable if between 6th and 8th grade. Understandability was evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool and defined as ideal if PEMAT ≥ 80%. The Evaluative Linguistic Framework for Questionnaires (ELF-Q) provided additional qualitative elements to assess understandability. Plain-language best practice was met if both readability and understandability were ideal. RESULTS: None of the 9 PROMs evaluated had ideal readability scores and only 1 had an acceptable score. Understandability ranged from 55% to 91%, and only 3 PROMs had ideal scores. ELF-Q identified points for improvement in several understandability dimensions of the PROMs. None of the instruments met the definition of plain-language best practice. CONCLUSION: None of the studied PROMs met the standards of readability and understandability. Future development and translation of PROMs should follow comprehensive linguistic and cultural frameworks to ensure plain-language standards and enhance equitable patient-centered care and research.

Implementing a PROACTive Care Pathway to Empower and Support Survivors of Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optimal comprehensive survivorship care is insufficiently delivered. To increase patient empowerment and maximize the uptake of multidisciplinary supportive care strategies to serve all survivorship needs, we implemented a proactive survivorship care pathway for patients with early breast cancer at the end of primary treatment phase. METHODS: Pathway components included (1) a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP), (2) face-to-face survivorship education seminars and personalized consultation for supportive care referrals (Transition Day), (3) a mobile app delivering personalized education and self-management advice, and (4) decision aids for physicians focused on supportive care needs. A mixed-methods process evaluation was performed according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework including administrative data review, pathway experience survey (patient, physician, and organization), and focus group. The primary objective was patient-perceived satisfaction with the pathway (predefined progression criteria for pathway continuation ≥70%). RESULTS: Over 6 months, 321 patients were eligible for the pathway and received a SCP and 98 (30%) attended the Transition Day. Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 (66.1%) responded. 70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app. 96.1% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the overall pathway, whereas perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app. Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization. CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs. This study can inform the implementation of survivorship care pathways in other centers.

Informing the development of multidisciplinary interventions to help breast cancer patients return to work: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Return to work (RTW) after breast cancer (BC) can be a major challenge for patients. Multidisciplinary interventions seem to be effective but the role of digital solutions is under-developed and therefore not evaluated. We explored the preferences, needs, and barriers regarding RTW interventions, including opinions about the use of digital approaches to deliver such interventions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study based on interviews with 30 patients with BC and 18 healthcare providers in four French regions. Emergent themes were identified using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Most providers declared that they did not proactively address RTW with patients, mainly due to having other priorities and a lack of knowledge. The following themes emerged: several development and deployment barriers regarding RTW interventions exist, multidisciplinary interventions are preferred, and there is a need to maintain contact between the patient and workplace during sick leave, including pathways and interlocutors that can facilitate RTW. Participants had mostly positive representations of using digital tools to facilitate RTW; however, fear of loss of human contact and the exacerbation of inequalities were identified as possible risks associated with the development of digital-only interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions blending the needs and preferences of patients with BC and the healthcare system are warranted. A personalized multimodal approach with mixed digital and in-person features has surfaced as a possible solution to address the weaknesses of existing interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Since most women work at the time of diagnosis, it is of particular relevance to build interventions promoting RTW.

Use of mHealth to Increase Physical Activity Among Breast Cancer Survivors With Fatigue: Qualitative Exploration.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity has shown beneficial effects in the treatment of breast cancer fatigue; nevertheless, a significant portion of patients remain insufficiently physically active after breast cancer. Currently most patients have a smartphone, and therefore mobile health (mHealth) holds the promise of promoting health behavior uptake for many of them. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we explored representations, levers, and barriers to physical activity and mHealth interventions among inactive breast cancer patients with fatigue. METHODS: This was an exploratory, qualitative study including breast cancer patients from a French cancer center. A total of 4 focus groups were conducted with 9 patients; 2 independent groups of patients (groups A and B) were interviewed at 2 consecutive times (sessions 1 to 4), before and after their participation in a 2-week mHealth group experience consisting of (1) a competitive virtual exercise group activity (a fictitious world tour), (2) participation in a daily chat network, and (3) access to physical activity information and world tour classification feedback. We used a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Several physical activity levers emerged including (1) physical factors such as perception of physical benefit and previous practice, (2) psychological factors such as motivation increased by provider recommendations, (3) social factors such as group practice, and (4) organizational factors including preplanning physical activity sessions. The main barriers to physical activity identified included late effects of cancer treatment, lack of motivation, and lack of time. The lack of familiarity with connected devices was perceived as the main barrier to the use of mHealth as a means to promote physical activity. The tested mHealth group challenge was associated with several positive representations including well-being and good habit promotion and being a motivational catalyzer. Following feedback, modifications were implemented into the mHealth challenge. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth-based, easily accessed group challenges were perceived as levers for the practice of physical activity in this population. mHealth-based group challenges should be explored as options to promote physical activity in a population with fatigue after breast cancer.

QualFatigue study: which factors influence the use of specific interventions for breast cancer survivors with fatigue? A cross-sectional exploratory study.

PURPOSE: International guidelines recommend specific interventions to reduce cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Evidence suggests underutilization of these interventions among breast cancer survivors. The QualFatigue study aimed to explore the potential factors influencing the use of specific interventions, for relief, in patients with CRF through qualitative analyses. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III breast cancer, and CRF ≥4 on a 10-point numerical scale were recruited within 6-24 months at the end of their primary treatment. Semi-structured interviews were performed. Emergent themes were identified using a stepped content analysis (QDA Miner software). RESULTS: Data saturation was achieved with 15 interviews. Four main themes emerged as potential sources of influence in the participants' use of specific interventions: (1) expectations regarding the management of CRF, (2) representations of the benefits provided by the interventions, (3) individual physical and psychological conditions, and (4) social and environmental situations. Six key levers came out transversally to optimize the use of specific interventions to relieve CRF: (1) listening and recognition of the individual difficulties and needs; (2) individual and global health assessments; (3) information and advice on how to manage CRF; (4) discussion groups focused on the management of CRF; (5) group activities; and (6) professional and personalized guidance. CONCLUSION: This study calls for multi-level action to address many persistent barriers and exploit levers in the management of CRF.

A qualitative evaluation of the use of interventions to treat fatigue among cancer survivors: A healthcare provider's view.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is among the most common and distressing side effects of cancer treatment. Different types of interventions, including physical activity (PA), psychosocial and mind-body interventions, have been shown to reduce CRF. We aimed to explore HCPs' practices and barriers to refer patients towards interventions to reduce CRF. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using key informant interviews among a sample of 20 HCPs including medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, pain specialists, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists and physiotherapists recruited from breast, prostate and colorectal cancer disease groups from a comprehensive cancer centre. RESULTS: Most interviewees reported not to address CRF spontaneously during consultations. When the topic of CRF was brought up by patients, all interviewees acknowledged to recommend PA, whereas few would recommend psychosocial or mind-body interventions. Barriers to recommend interventions to manage CRF included: lack of knowledge about CRF and its treatment, lack of time and complexity of the referral due to their accessibility and cost. CONCLUSION: In a diverse sample of HCPs, most acknowledged not to address CRF proactively with their patients, but identified several actionable barriers. Specific training on screening and management of CRF and improving the referral network dedicated to interventions need to be implemented.

[Breast cancer screening: On our way to the future]. / Dépistage du cancer du sein : en route vers le futur.

Breast cancer remains a potentially lethal disease, which requires aggressive treatments and is associated with long-term consequences. Its prognosis is linked to both tumor biology and burden at diagnosis. Although treatments have allowed important improvements in prognosis over the past 20 years, breast cancer screening remains necessary. Mammographic screening allows earlier stage diagnoses and a decrease of breast cancer specific mortality. However, breast cancer screening modalities should be revised with the objective to address demonstrated limitations of mammographic screening (limited benefit, imperfect sensitivity and specificity, overdiagnoses, radiation-induced morbidity). Furthermore, both objective and perceived performances of screening procedures should be improved. Numerous large international efforts are ongoing, leading to scientific progresses that should have rapid clinical implications in this area. Among them is improvement of imaging techniques performance, development of real time diagnosis, and development of new non radiological screening techniques such as the search for circulating tumor DNA, development of biomarkers able to allow precise risk evaluation and stratified screening. As well, overtreatment is currently addressed by biomarker-based de-escalation clinical trials. These advances need to be associated with strong societal support, as well as major paradigm changes regarding the way health and cancer prevention is perceived by individuals.