Feasibility of a co-designed online nutrition education program for people with multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Diet quality is important for people with multiple sclerosis (MS), but conflicting online information causes them confusion. People with MS want evidence-based MS-specific information to help them make healthy dietary changes, and we co-designed an asynchronous, online nutrition education program (Eating Well with MS) with the MS community. Our aim was to determine the feasibility of Eating Well with MS. METHODS: We used a single-arm pre-post design. The feasibility trial was a nine-week intervention with adults with confirmed MS. Feasibility outcomes: 1) demand (recruitment); 2) practicality (completion); 3) acceptability (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory: interest/enjoyment and value/usefulness subscales); and 4) limited efficacy testing (Diet Habits Questionnaire (DHQ); Critical Nutrition Literacy Tool (CNLT); Food Literacy Behaviour Checklist (FLBC), using intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS: Recruitment (n = 70) exceeded the target (n = 48) within six weeks. Of the 70 enrolled, 84 % completed at least one module and 54 % completed the full program (five modules). The median interest/enjoyment rating was 5 out of 7 and median value/usefulness rating was 6 out of 7 (where 7 = 'very true'). Compared to pre-intervention, DHQ, CNLT, and FLBC scores all statistically significantly improved post-intervention. CONCLUSION: Eating Well with MS was well received by the MS community and improved their dietary behaviours; demonstrating feasibility. Our findings support the use of co-design methods when developing resources to improve dietary behaviours.

Impact of Cognitive Rehabilitation on Cognitive and Functional Outcomes in Adult Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021275421) synthesized evidence on the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation on cognitive and functional outcomes in adult cancer survivors. METHODS: Articles were identified though PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception through June 30, 2023. Studies included participants ≥18 years old, diagnosed with cancer. Primary outcomes were validated measures of subjective and objective cognition. Articles were dual reviewed for eligibility and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed with the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. RESULTS: The search yielded 3,811 articles; 65 full-text articles were reviewed; 53 articles (15 cognitive training, 14 strategy-based, 21 combinations, three inpatient rehabilitation), representing 52 unique studies, were included. Positive effects were observed in at least one objective cognitive measure in 93% of strategy training, 81% of cognitive training, 79% of combination rehabilitation interventions. Positive effects were observed in subjective cognition in 100% of strategy training, 55% of cognitive training, and 92% of combination interventions. Among studies with comparator groups, processing speed improved in 60% of cognitive training studies, while strategy training did not improve processing speed; otherwise, cognitive domain effects were similar between intervention types. Impact on functional outcomes was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive rehabilitation appear beneficial for cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). Differential effects on specific cognitive domains (eg, processing speed) and subjective cognition may exist between intervention types. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses should increase patient and provider awareness of the benefits of cognitive rehabilitation for CRCI.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in adults with haematological malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: Despite people with haematological malignancies being particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection and complications, vaccine hesitancy may be a barrier to optimal vaccination. This study explored attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in people with haematological malignancies. METHODS: People with haematological malignancies at nine Australian health services were surveyed between June and October, 2021. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination were explored using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Open-ended comments were qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: A total of 869 people with haematological malignancies (mean age 64.2 years, 43.6% female) participated. Most participants (85.3%) reported that they had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Participants who were younger, spoke English as a non-dominant language, and had a shorter time since diagnosis were less likely to be vaccinated. Those who were female or spoke English as their non-dominant language reported greater vaccine side-effects concerns. Younger participants reported greater concerns about the vaccine impacting their treatment. CONCLUSION: People with haematological malignancies reported high vaccine uptake, however, targeted education for specific participant groups may address vaccine hesitancy concerns, given the need for COVID-19 vaccine boosters.

Patient perceptions of altering chemotherapy treatment due to peripheral neuropathy.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment in patients experiencing intolerable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The primary objective of this survey was to understand patient's perspectives on altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment, including their perceptions of the benefits of preventing irreversible CIPN and the risks of reducing treatment efficacy. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via social networks to patients who were currently receiving or had previously received neurotoxic chemotherapy for cancer. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Following data cleaning, 447 participants were included in the analysis. The median age was 57 years, 93% were white, and most were from the UK (53%) or USA (38%). Most participants who were currently or recently treated expected some CIPN symptom resolution (86%), but 45% of those who had completed treatment more than a year ago reported experiencing no symptom resolution. Participants reported that they would discontinue chemotherapy treatment for less severe CIPN if they knew their symptoms would be permanent than if symptoms would disappear after treatment. Most patients stated that the decision to alter chemotherapy or not was usually made collaboratively between the patient and their treating clinician (61%). The most common reason participants were reluctant to talk with their clinician about CIPN was fear that treatment would be altered. Participants noted a need for improved understanding of CIPN symptoms and their permanence, better patient education relating to CIPN prior to and after treatment, and greater clinician understanding and empathy around CIPN. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the importance of shared decision-making, including a consideration of both the long-term benefits and risks of altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment due to CIPN. Additional work is needed to develop decision aids and other communication tools that can be used to improve shared decision making and help patients with cancer achieve their treatment goals.