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.

Anticipatory anxiety and participation in cancer screening. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize current evidence on the association between anticipatory anxiety, defined as apprehension-specific negative affect that may be experienced when exposed to potential threat or uncertainty, and cancer screening to better inform strategies to maximize participation rates. METHODS: Searches related to cancer screening and anxiety were conducted in seven electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL), with potentially eligible papers screened in Covidence. Data extraction was conducted independently by multiple authors. Barriers to cancer screening for any type of cancer and relationships tested between anticipatory anxiety and cancer screening and intention were categorized and compared according to the form and target of anxiety and cancer types. RESULTS: A total of 74 articles (nparticipants  = 119,990) were included, reporting 103 relationships tested between anticipatory anxiety and cancer screening and 13 instances where anticipatory anxiety was reported as a barrier to screening. Anticipatory anxiety related to a possible cancer diagnosis was often associated with increased screening, while general anxiety showed no consistent relationship. Negative relationships were often found between anxiety about the screening procedure and cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Anticipatory anxiety about a cancer diagnosis may promote screening participation, whereas a fear of the screening procedure could be a barrier. Public health messaging and primary prevention practitioners should acknowledge the appropriate risk of cancer, while engendering screening confidence and highlighting the safety and comfort of screening tests.

Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Patients with Serious Chronic Illnesses during the Initial Australian Vaccine Rollout: A Multi-Centre Qualitative Analysis Using the Health Belief Model.

Background: People with chronic illnesses have increased morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection. The influence of a person's serious and/or comorbid chronic illness on COVID-19 vaccine uptake is not well understood. Aim: To undertake an in-depth exploration of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among those with various serious and/or chronic diseases in the Australian context, using secondary data analysis of a survey study. Methods: Adults with cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS) were recruited from 10 Australian health services to undertake a cross-sectional online survey (30 June to 5 October 2021) about COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine hesitancy, confidence and complacency and disease-related decision-making impact. Free-text responses were invited regarding thoughts and feelings about the interaction between the participant's disease, COVID-19, and vaccination. Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken using an iterative process and representative verbatim quotes were chosen to illustrate the themes. Results: Of 4683 survey responses (cancer 3560, diabetes 842, and MS 281), 1604 (34.3%) included free-text comments for qualitative analysis. Participants who provided these were significantly less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccination than those who did not comment (72.4% and 86.2%, respectively). People with diabetes were significantly less likely to provide free-text comments than those with cancer or MS (29.0%, 35.1% and 39.9%, respectively). Four key themes were identified from qualitative analysis, which were similar across disease states: (1) having a chronic disease heightened perceived susceptibility to and perceived severity of COVID-19; (2) perceived impact of vaccination on chronic disease management and disease-related safety; (3) uncertain benefits of COVID-19 vaccine; and (4) overwhelming information overload disempowering patients. Conclusions: This qualitative analysis highlights an additional layer of complexity related to COVID-19 vaccination decision making in people with underlying health conditions. Appreciation of higher susceptibility to severe COVID-19 outcomes appears to be weighed against uncertain impacts of the vaccine on the progression and management of the comorbid disease. Interactions by clinicians addressing individual factors may alleviate concerns and maximise vaccine uptake in people with significant underlying health conditions.

The Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six (DIVAS-6): Validation of a Measure to Assess Disease-Related COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes and Concerns.

Patients with underlying comorbidities are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite the context-specific nature of vaccine hesitancy, there are currently no scales that incorporate disease or treatment-related hesitancy factors. We developed a six-item scale assessing disease-related COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns (The Disease Influenced COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six: DIVAS-6). A survey incorporating the DIVAS-6 was completed by 4683 participants with severe and/or chronic illness (3560 cancer; 842 diabetes; 281 multiple sclerosis (MS)). The survey included the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, demographic, disease-related, and vaccination status questions. The six items loaded onto two factors (disease complacency and vaccine vulnerability) using exploratory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. The two factors were internally consistent. Measurement invariance analysis showed the two factors displayed psychometric equivalence across the patient groups. Each factor significantly correlated with the two Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine scales, showing convergent validity. The summary score showed acceptable ability to discriminate vaccination status across diseases, with the total sample providing good-to-excellent discriminative ability. The DIVAS-6 has two factors measuring COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns relating to potential complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to underlying disease (disease complacency) and vaccine-related impact on disease progression and treatment (vaccine vulnerability). This is the first validated scale to measure disease-related COVID-19 vaccine concerns and has been validated in people with cancer, diabetes, and MS. It is quick to administer and should assist with guiding information delivery about COVID-19 vaccination in medically vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Australian Patients with Solid Organ Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. RESULTS: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19-95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

Exercise counselling and referral in cancer care: an international scoping survey of health care practitioners' knowledge, practices, barriers, and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the role of prescribed exercise for cancer survivors, yet few are advised to exercise by a healthcare practitioner (HCP). We sought to investigate the gap between HCPs' knowledge and practice from an international perspective. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to HCPs working in cancer care between February 2020 and February 2021. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding exercise counselling and referral of cancer survivors to exercise programs. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 375 participants classified as medical practitioners (42%), nurses (28%), exercise specialists (14%), and non-exercise allied health practitioners (16%). Between 35 and 50% of participants self-reported poor knowledge of when, how, and which cancer survivors to refer to exercise programs or professionals, and how to counsel based on exercise guidelines. Commonly reported barriers to exercise counselling were safety concerns, time constraints, cancer survivors being told to rest by friends and family, and not knowing how to screen people for suitability to exercise (40-48%). Multivariable logistic regression models including age, gender, practitioner group, leisure-time physical activity, and recall of guidelines found significant effects for providing specific exercise advice (χ2(7) = 117.31, p < .001), discussing the role of exercise in symptom management (χ2(7) = 65.13, p < .001) and cancer outcomes (χ2(7) = 58.69, p < .001), and referring cancer survivors to an exercise program or specialist (χ2(7) = 72.76, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Additional education and practical support are needed to equip HCPs to provide cancer survivors with exercise guidelines, resources, and referrals to exercise specialists.

Smoking habits, awareness and support needs for cessation among people with multiple sclerosis in Australia: findings from an online survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess smoking habits, nicotine use, exposure to passive smoking, awareness of associated harms, and experiences with and preferences for smoking cessation support among people with multiple sclerosis (MS). DESIGN: Online survey, convenience sampling. SETTING: Community setting, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Adults living in Australia with probable or diagnosed MS were recruited via social media and newsletters to participate in 2020. RESULTS: Of the 284 participants in our convenience sample, 25.7% were current smokers (n=73) and 38.0% were former smokers (n=108). Awareness of the harms of smoking on MS onset (n=68, 24.3%) and progression (n=116, 41.6%) was low. Almost a quarter (n=67, 23.8%) of participants were regularly exposed to passive smoke, and awareness of associated harm was also low (n=47, 16.8%). Among current smokers, 76.1% (n=54) had tried quitting and 73.2% considered quitting within 6 months (n=52). Many participants reported perceived short-term benefits of smoking, and long-term benefits of quitting, on MS symptoms and general well-being (short-term n=28, 40.0%; long-term n=28, 82.4%). While most participants reported that their neurologist (n=126, 75.4%) or other healthcare providers (n=125, 74.9%) had assessed smoking status, very few neurologists (n=3, 1.8%) or other healthcare providers (n=14, 8.4%) had provided help with quitting. Most current smokers preferred speaking about smoking to a neurologist (n=36, 52.2%) or general practitioner (n=41, 59.4%). Almost 60% of the current smokers wanted additional cessation information specific to MS (n=41, 59.4%), and 45.5% said this information would motivate them to quit smoking (n=30). CONCLUSIONS: Our convenience sample, which may not be representative, indicated an urgent need for regular evidence-based smoking cessation supports for people with MS. Most participants felt they would benefit from smoking cessation advice. MS clinicians, in collaboration with patient organisations, smoking cessation services and general practitioners, should make smoking cessation promotion with people with MS a priority.

Serious Underlying Medical Conditions and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Large Cross-Sectional Analysis from Australia.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

COVID-19 vaccination rates, intent, and hesitancy in patients with solid organ and blood cancers: A multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: People with cancer are at higher risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19 infection. We investigated COVID-19 vaccine uptake among patients with solid organ and blood cancers and explored factors related to hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey of adults with a history of cancer at three health services across metropolitan and regional Victoria. Vaccine hesitancy was measured by the validated Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. RESULTS: There were 1073 respondents: 56% female; median age 62 years (range 23 - 91). Commonest tumor types included breast 29%, gastrointestinal 19%, hematological 15%, genitourinary 15%, and lung 8%. Thirty-six percent had metastatic disease, and 54% were receiving active anticancer treatment. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated positive intent toward COVID-19 vaccination, 10% were undecided, and 6% indicated negative attitudes. At least one vaccine dose had been received by 65% of respondents, leaving 35% unvaccinated. Fifty-eight percent of unvaccinated patients answered that they would "definitely" or "probably" take a vaccine. Higher vaccine uptake was significantly associated with older age, male gender, English as first language, longer time since cancer diagnosis, and not being on current anticancer treatment. Concerns regarding vaccine side effects, particularly thrombosis, and the desire for clear medical advice were prominent among unvaccinated respondents. CONCLUSION: Despite being eligible for COVID-19 vaccination since March 2021, a substantial minority of patients with cancer remained unvaccinated as of August 2021. Targeted communication and educational resources addressing vaccine safety in the context of cancer are key to promoting vaccine uptake in this vulnerable population.

Lifestyle and complementary therapies in multiple sclerosis guidelines: Systematic review.

Management of multiple sclerosis (MS) may comprise clinical interventions and self-management strategies, including complementary therapies and modifiable lifestyle factors such as exercise and smoking cessation. Lifestyle modifications and complementary therapies with proven safety and efficacy are essential as part of best-practice MS management, especially when faced with limited access to healthcare services. However, it is unclear to what extent MS clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements address these strategies. A systematic review was conducted, wherein MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, guideline databases and developer sites were searched for guidelines and consensus statements that addressed lifestyle modifications and complementary therapies of interest. Two researchers independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II. Thirty-one guidelines and consensus statements were included. Quality was high for 'clarity of presentation' (77%) and 'scope and purpose' (73%), moderate for 'stakeholder development' (56%), 'rigour of development' (48%) and 'editorial independence' (47%), and low for 'applicability' (29%). Two guidelines, related to physical activity and exercise, mindfulness, smoking cessation, and vitamin D and polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation, scored high in all domains. These guidelines were two of only four guidelines intended for use by people with MS. High-quality guidelines and consensus statements to guide lifestyle modifications and complementary therapies in MS management are limited. Our findings indicate the need for more guidelines intended for use by people with MS, and a further focus on implementation resources.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. METHODS: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. RESULTS: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

Improving smoking cessation support for people with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative analysis of clinicians' views and current practice.

Introduction Smoking is a key modifiable risk factor in multiple sclerosis (MS). MS healthcare providers have a central role informing people of the deleterious effects of smoking on MS progression and promote smoking cessation, yet there is limited information about smoking cessation and support provided by these providers. This study aimed to gain an understanding of MS healthcare providers current practices, barriers and facilitators related to providing smoking cessation support for people with MS. Methods A total of 13 MS nurses and 6 neurologists working in public and private MS clinics across Australia were recruited through professional networks and MS organisations. Telephone interviews were conducted, transcribed and evaluated using framework analysis. Results MS nurses and neurologists reported that they routinely assess smoking status of people with MS at initial appointments and less regularly also at follow-up appointments. Clinicians considered it important to provide information about smoking impact on MS health outcomes and advise to cease smoking, but the content and delivery varies. Beyond this, some clinicians offer referral for smoking cessation support, while others stated this was not their responsibility, especially in light of competing priorities. Many were unsure about referral pathways and options, requiring more information, training and resources. Conclusion Results of this research indicate that there is potential to improve support for MS clinicians to promote smoking cessation among people with MS. Smoking cessation support may include tailored patient resources, clinician training and stronger collaboration with smoking cessation service providers.

Barriers and motivators for tobacco smoking cessation in people with multiple sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a key modifiable risk factor for health outcomes of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Little evidence exists on whether the information and support needs of people with MS who smoke are met. This study aimed to explore knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about smoking and quitting, and quitting support needs in Australian people with MS. METHODS: Current and recent smokers were recruited for phone interviews through social media and newsletters. Interview data were analysed in NVivo using framework analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 people with MS (20 current and five recent smokers). Many participants had little knowledge about the risks of smoking on MS progression. Some reported perceived benefits from smoking on MS symptoms, while others perceived smoking worsening their symptoms. Similarly, quitting was believed to have health benefits, but concerns about withdrawal symptoms and the impact on MS symptoms and relapses were common. Participants reported ambivalence discussing smoking with clinicians; some wanting more information and support, while also feeling shame or guilt. Many participants were asked about their smoking status by MS clinicians, however, the provision of evidence-based information, and referrals to quitting support services was very infrequent. General practitioners were often found helpful and supportive, but participants gave more weight to quit advice from MS clinicians. CONCLUSION: Our results are the first to indicate that smoking cessation needs of Australian people with MS are not met. These findings should be confirmed in a larger sample, but there is potential to investigate whether implementing routine provision of brief advice in MS care, as a coordinated effort between MS researchers, practitioners, consumer advocates and behavioural intervention services, may meet these needs. Further, developing targeted resources and training quit counsellors to provide appropriate information and support specific to people with MS may improve smoking cessation success in people with MS.

Patient-centric decision framework for treatment alterations in patients with Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN).

Recently updated American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) in Survivors of Adult Cancers make a single recommendation to alter treatment by delaying, decreasing, or discontinuing dosing in patients who develop CIPN during neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment. Dosing guidelines have inconsistent recommendations for when (i.e., what CIPN severity) and how (i.e., delay, decrease, or discontinue) to alter neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment in patients with CIPN. Clinical decision making requires an understanding the benefits and risks of treatment alteration, in addition to consideration of other disease and patient factors. This review summarizes four areas of literature and culminates in a patient-centric decision framework to guide clinicians in helping patients to make treatment alteration decisions. First, we describe the current practice of altering treatment due to CIPN, including treatment alteration recommendations and published rates. Second, we summarize the potential benefits of treatment alteration including the reduction in CIPN severity and persistence. Third, we evaluate the potential risk of treatment alteration in compromising treatment efficacy by reviewing prospective trials comparing dosing regimens and retrospective analyses of the effect of relative dose intensity on efficacy. Fourth, we summarize disease and patient factors that should be considered when making a treatment alteration decision for a patient. We then propose a patient-centric decision framework that clinicians can use to assess an individual patient's current and anticipated future CIPN severity and compare that to their maximum tolerable severity to determine whether they should continue, delay, decrease, or discontinue neurotoxic chemotherapy.

Effectiveness of online communication skills training for cancer and palliative care health professionals: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reported effect of online communication skills training (CST) on health professional (HP) communication skills and patient care outcomes in cancer and palliative care. METHODS: Primary research published in English between January 2003 and April 2019 was identified in bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase and Proquest (Prospero: CRD42018088681). An integrated mixed-method approach included studies describing a CST intervention and its effect, for cancer or palliative care HPs, delivered online or blended with an online component. Included studies' outcomes were categorised then findings were stratified by an evaluation framework and synthesised in an effect direction plot. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's tools. RESULTS: Nineteen included studies (five randomised controlled trials, 11 pre-post, two post-test and one qualitative study) evaluated a CST intervention (median duration = 3.75 h; range 0.66-96 h) involving 1116 HPs, 422 students and 732 patients. Most interventions taught communication skills for specific scenarios and approximately half were delivered solely online and did not involve role plays. Online CST improved HPs' self-assessed communication skills (three studies, 215 participants), confidence (four studies, 533 participants), and objective knowledge (five studies, 753 participants). While few studies evaluated patient outcomes, CST may benefit observed communication skills in care settings (two studies, 595 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Online CST benefits oncology HPs' subjectively-reported communication skills and confidence, and objective knowledge. Translation to patient outcomes requires further investigation. The quality of research varied and few studies had a control group. We recommend improvements to study design, evaluation and implementation.

Cancer-related cognitive impairment in patients with non-central nervous system malignancies: an overview for oncology providers from the MASCC Neurological Complications Study Group.

Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is commonly experienced by individuals with non-central nervous system cancers throughout the disease and treatment trajectory. CRCI can have a substantial impact on the functional ability and quality of life of patients and their families. To mitigate the impact, oncology providers must know how to identify, assess, and educate patients and caregivers. The objective of this review is to provide oncology clinicians with an overview of CRCI in the context of adults with non-central nervous system cancers, with a particular focus on current approaches in its identification, assessment, and management.

Modifiable risk factors for poor health outcomes in multiple sclerosis: The urgent need for research to maximise smoking cessation success.

Tobacco smoking is a well-established risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS) onset, progression and poor health outcomes in people with MS. Despite smoking being a modifiable risk factor, no research has been undertaken to understand how, or who is best placed, to assess or understand smoking behaviour in people with MS, or how healthcare professionals can best assist people with MS to quit. People with MS may have unique motivators to continue smoking, or unique barriers to smoking cessation, that are not addressed by existing cessation tools. Research is urgently needed in this area if the aim is to maximise health outcomes for all people with MS.