Adopting a systems-thinking approach to optimise dietary and exercise referral practices for cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Service referrals are required for cancer survivors to access specialist dietary and exercise support. Many system-level factors influence referral practices within the healthcare system. Hence, the aim of this study was to identify system-level factors and their interconnectedness, as well as strategies for optimising dietary and exercise referral practices in Australia. METHODS: A full-day workshop involving national multidisciplinary key stakeholders explored system-level factors impacting dietary and exercise referral practices. Facilitated group discussions using the nominal group technique identified barriers and facilitators to referral practices based on the six World Health Organisation (WHO) building blocks. The systems-thinking approach generated six cognitive maps, each representing a building block. A causal loop diagram was developed to visualise factors that influence referral practices. Additionally, each group identified their top five strategies by leveraging facilitators and addressing barriers relevant to their WHO building block. RESULTS: Twenty-seven stakeholders participated in the workshop, including consumers (n = 2), cancer specialists (n = 4), nursing (n = 6) and allied health professionals (n = 10), and researchers, representatives of peak bodies, not-for-profit organisations, and government agencies (n = 5). Common system-level factors impacting on referral practices included funding, accessibility, knowledge and education, workforce capacity, and infrastructure. Fifteen system-level strategies were identified to improve referral practices. CONCLUSION: This study identified system-level factors and strategies that can be applied to policy planning and practice in Australia.

Implementing a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs using patient-reported outcomes in people with cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the implementation of a web-based system of screening for symptoms and needs in people with diverse cancers in a general hospital in Australia. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, pragmatic intervention study. After local adaptation of an online portal and training, cancer nurses were asked to register patients to screen via the portal in clinic or at home. Symptoms were scored according to severity, and scores above cut-off were reported to nurses for assessment and management, according to best practice. RESULTS: Fifteen nurses working across diverse tumour types agreed to approach patients for screening. Of these, 7 nurses approached 68 patients, with 5 approaching more than 1 during the 7-month study period. Forty-seven (69%) patients completed screening, and 22 rescreened at least once. At first screening, 33 (70%) patients reported at least one symptom, most commonly tiredness (n = 27; 57%), reduced wellbeing (n = 24; 51%) and drowsiness (n = 17; 36%). Of the total 75 screens undertaken during the study, 56 (75%) identified at least one symptom, and 22 (29%) identified at least one severe symptom. All patients with a positive first screen were followed up by a nurse assessment and intervention-mostly reassurance (n = 19, 59%) or referral to another health professional (n = 11, 34%). CONCLUSION: Screening for symptoms and needs using a web-based portal identified many unmet needs, but the uptake of this intervention by nurses and patients was lower than expected.

Physical activity interventions in older people with cancer: A review of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Whilst there has been a wealth of research on benefits of physical activity (PA) in people with cancer, with three published reviews of reviews, no review of reviews has focused on older adults (65 years or older) who may have unique biological characteristics and barriers. We summarised PA effectiveness from reviews where majority of study participants were 65 years or older. METHODS: Six databases were searched for systematic reviews of randomised controlled studies (RCTs)/quasi-RCTs examining any type of PA in reviews where majority of study participants were aged 65 years or older. Two reviewers conducted the search and analysis according to PRISMA and JBI guidelines. RESULTS: Fifteen reviews involving 76 different primary studies (5404 participants) were included. The majority (3827; 71%) had prostate cancer. PA was associated with benefits across multiple physical outcomes (muscle mass, functional performance, strength), improved fatigue and health service outcomes. In contrast to younger adults, there was no improvement in anxiety and mixed findings for quality of life and depression. CONCLUSION: PA is associated with multiple benefits in older adults with cancer, with some differences compared to younger individuals which may reflect biological or behavioural determinants. Future research should focus on mechanisms underlying PA effectiveness and underrepresented populations.

External validation of a model to identify cardiometabolic predictors of mortality in cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors are at risk of cardiovascular disease because of shared risk factors and effects of treatment. There are few tools to assist in estimating the risk of poor outcomes relating to cardiovascular disease in cancer survivors and identifying those at risk. The purpose of this study was to externally validate a model for predicting the risk of increased mortality in female cancer survivors. METHODS: A risk prediction model originally developed using data from the general population of older adults from the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing was externally validated using data from two Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) cohorts. Three measures of discrimination were calculated. Calibration was assessed by visualising a graph of the model predictions and observed events. RESULTS: The ALSWH cohorts consisted of 1764 women (aged 73-78 years) and 1833 women (aged 47-52 years). Discrimination was acceptable with the Harrell C-index and the Gonen and Heller K statistic both greater than 0.5. The model explained up to 30% of the variation in mortality. Calibration showed that the recalibrated model performed best in years 8-10 suggesting that the model is better at predicting survival for those with a higher probability of surviving. Overall, model performance was better in the 47-52 years cohort than in the older cohort. CONCLUSION: We have externally validated a model of cardiometabolic predictors of mortality in female cancer survivors. The model can serve as a basis of clinical tool to assist with decision-making regarding potential risk reduction strategies in this population.

Identification of nutritional risk in the acute care setting: progress towards a practice and evidence informed systems level approach.

BACKGROUND: To improve nutritional assessment and care pathways in the acute care setting, it is important to understand the indicators that may predict nutritional risk. Informed by a review of systematic reviews, this project engaged stakeholders to prioritise and reach consensus on a list of evidence based and clinically contextualised indicators for identifying malnutrition risk in the acute care setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was employed which consisted of four rounds of consultation with 54 stakeholders and 10 experts to reach consensus and refine a list of 57 risk indicators identified from a review of systematic reviews. Weighted mean and variance scores for each indicator were evaluated. Consistency was tested with intra class correlation coefficient. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the indicators. The final list of indicators was subject to Cronbach's alpha and exploratory principal component analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen indicators were considered to be the most important in identifying nutritional risk. These included difficulty self-feeding, polypharmacy, surgery and impaired gastro-intestinal function. There was 82% agreement for the final 15 indicators that they collectively would predict malnutrition risk in hospital inpatients. CONCLUSION: The 15 indicators identified are supported by evidence and are clinically informed. This represents an opportunity for translation into a novel and automated systems level approach for identifying malnutrition risk in the acute care setting.

Cancer Survivors' Experience of Care and Financial Toxicity: Results From a National Survey.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) can adversely affect quality of life, treatment adherence, and clinical outcomes. Patient experience of care (PEC) captures patient's perspectives on interactions with health care providers (HCPs) and systems, but the impact of PEC on FT is unknown. This study examined the relationship between PEC and FT. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Experience with Cancer Survivorship Supplement. PEC was assessed by patient-reported frequencies of their HCPs providing explanations that were easy to understand, listening carefully, showing respect, and spending enough time with the patient. FT was assessed by nine items to measure material, psychological, and behavioral FT. Analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and weighted to produce nationally representative estimates and account for survey nonresponse. RESULTS: Data from 1,068 individuals diagnosed with cancer at age >18 years were assessed. A total of 30% reported material FT, 35% reported psychological FT, and 27% reported behavioral FT. Examining PEC, 64% of respondents indicated that HCPs always explained things, 60% always listened, 66% always showed respect, and 57% always spent adequate time with them. Odds of psychological FT were significantly (P < .05) lower among patients reporting HCPs always (v never/sometimes) listened to them (odds ratio [OR], 0.37 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.70]), showed them respect (OR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81]), and spent enough time with them (OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.86]). Significant associations with PEC were also found with MEPS psychological FT items on worry about paying medical bills, family's financial stability, and keeping job/income because of cancer. CONCLUSION: Worry/anxiety regarding costs can be a major factor affecting individuals diagnosed with cancer. Improving patient-provider interactions to enhance patient experience of care may reduce psychological financial toxicity.

Supportive care 2030 movement: towards unifying ambitions for global excellence in supportive cancer care-an international Delphi study.

Background: Supportive care to ensure optimal quality of life is an essential component of cancer care and symptom control across the lifespan. Ongoing advances in cancer treatment, increasing toxicity from many novel treatment regimes, and variations in access to care and cancer outcomes across the globe and resource settings present significant challenges for supportive care delivery. To date, no overarching framework has been developed to guide supportive care development worldwide. As an initial step of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Supportive Care 2030 Movement, we developed a targeted, unifying set of ambition statements to envision the future of supportive cancer care. Methods: From September 2022 until June 2023, we used a modified Delphi methodology to develop and attain consensus about ambition statements related to supportive cancer care. Leaders of MASCC Study Groups were invited to participate in an Expert Panel for the first two Delphi rounds (and a preliminary round to suggest potential ambition statements). Patient Advocates then examined and provided input regarding the ambition statements. Findings: Twenty-seven Expert Panelists and 11 Patient Advocates participated. Consensus was attained on 13 ambition statements, with two sub-statements. The ambition statements addressed global standards for guideline development and implementation, coordinated and individualized care, dedicated supportive oncology services, self-management, needs for screening and actions, patient education, behavioral support, financial impact minimization, comprehensive survivorship care, and timely palliative care, reflecting collaboration, coordination and team-based approach across all levels. Interpretation: This study is the first to develop shared ambitions for the future of supportive cancer care on a global level. These ambition statements can facilitate a coordinated, resource-stratified, and person-centered approach and inform research, education, clinical services, and policy efforts. Funding: This project received funding support from Prof Raymond Chan's NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1194051).

"There could be something going wrong and I wouldn't even know": a qualitative study of perceptions of people with cancer about cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and its management.

PURPOSE: Despite being at higher risk, many people with cancer do not receive adequate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment or management. The purpose of this research was to examine people with cancer's perceptions, experiences and needs regarding CVD risk factor awareness, assessment and management. METHODS: We conducted 15 individual interviews to examine people with cancer's perspectives regarding CVD care in cancer. Reflexive thematic analysis was utilised to collect and organise data into themes and to synthesise findings. RESULTS: Fifteen people (6 males) diagnosed with diverse cancer types participated. Majority participants were not or only somewhat aware of CVD risk in cancer, but all expressed it was an important issue. A diverse range of priorities and needs for CVD care was discussed, including some participants' prioritisation of dealing with cancer and preferred amount, type and manner of information provision and support. Websites and brochures were identified as potential solutions for optimising CVD care. CONCLUSIONS: Codesign methodology should be used to engage patients in the development of flexible, tailored resources to increase awareness of CVD risk and strategies for its management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Perceptions of people with cancer regarding CVD care can inform new interventions that reduce the impact of CVD in cancer.

Reducing the impact of cardiovascular disease in older people with cancer: a qualitative study of healthcare providers.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors are at greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) than cancer-free controls. Despite evidence-based guidelines recommending CVD risk factor assessment, surveillance and risk-reduction, many people with cancer do not receive adequate CVD care. To address potential barriers and enablers of care, we examined healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perceptions and experiences of CVD risk assessment and management in people with cancer. METHODS: We conducted one focus group and 12 individual interviews to examine HCPs' perceptions and experiences of CVD care in care. We used reflexive thematic analysis to collect and analyse the qualitative data to construct and understand themes. RESULTS: Twenty-one HCPs participated (8 oncologists, 5 nurses, 3 general practitioners, 2 dietitians, 1 cardiologist, 1 haematologist and 1 physiotherapist). Majority of HCPs were aware of CVD risk in cancer but were concerned they could not deliver CVD care alone due to system-level barriers including lack of time and training. HCPs also perceived patient-level barriers including socioeconomic disadvantage and fatalistic outlook. Despite barriers, HCPs suggested diverse solutions for improving CVD care in cancer including new models-of-care, clinical pathways, risk assessment/management tools and education. CONCLUSIONS: The diversity of perceived barriers and suggested solutions identified by HCPs suggests the need for a multilevel approach tailored to context. Future research involving people with cancer is needed to co-design acceptable interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Improved understanding of HCP's perceptions can inform the development of new interventions to deliver CVD care to people with cancer to reduce morbidity and mortality.

From Evidence-Based Practice to Knowledge Translation: What Is the Difference? What Are the Roles of Nurse Leaders?

OBJECTIVES: Nurses, as the largest healthcare workforce, are well-positioned to apply knowledge translation. The role of nursing leadership in facilitating evidence-based practice has been extensively discussed in the literature, but this is not the case for knowledge translation. The objective of this study was to examine the potential role of nurse leaders in applying knowledge translation across health settings. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed the existing literature for evidence-based practice as best practice in clinical care; examined how a complex systems approach to knowledge translation may extend beyond evidence-based practice, and considered nursing leadership approaches including transformational leadership. CONCLUSION: In this discursive article, we discuss the differences between evidence-based practice and knowledge translation, highlight the promise of transformational leadership in facilitating knowledge translation through a complex systems lens, and argue for the importance of nurse leaders in facilitating and supporting complex knowledge translation across healthcare settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Although future research is needed to test our ideas, we argue that the advanced conceptual understanding generated in this article should inform a roadmap toward a future in which nurse leaders initiate, participate and advocate for complex knowledge translation across healthcare settings.

Mapping Systematic Reviews of Breast Cancer Survivorship Interventions: A Network Analysis.

PURPOSE: Despite a large volume of research, breast cancer survivors continue to experience high levels of unmet need. To better understand the breadth of evidence, we mapped systematic review-level evidence across cancer survivorship domains and outcomes and conducted network analyses of breast cancer survivorship care interventions. METHODS: Umbrella review methodology was used to identify published systematic reviews reporting on survivorship care interventions for breast cancer survivors. Included reviews were mapped against domains and health care outcomes as specified by the Cancer Survivorship Quality Framework, and network analyses were conducted to determine the extent of clustering of reviews, and connectivity across domains and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 323 included reviews, most focused on management of physical (71.5%) or psychologic (65.3%) effects, health-related quality of life (55.1%), and physical activity (45.2%). Few focused on financial/employment effects, chronic conditions, health care delivery domains, or health service use or cost outcomes. Network analysis indicated 38.6% of reviews were connected to a single domain, 35.0% to two domains, and 16.5% to three domains, indicating a relatively siloed nature of research, with greater community clustering between health care delivery domains but limited connection between these and the other domains. Reviews published between 2011 and 2021 were more likely to examine financial toxicity and chronic conditions, but these domains remained under-represented compared with physical and psychologic effects. CONCLUSION: Despite vast volume of breast cancer survivorship intervention research, systematic review-level research is unevenly distributed, siloed, and with significant gaps in key domains and outcomes. Assessment of evidence gaps in primary research and strategic planning of future research, in consultation with survivors, is needed.