A mixed methods pilot and feasibility open trial of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (iCanADAPT Advanced) for people with advanced cancer with depression and/or anxiety.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and potential efficacy of a form of online therapy for clinical depression and/or anxiety in people living with advanced cancer. METHODS: A single-arm open trial of a six-lesson clinician-supervised, internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) transdiagnostic intervention (iCanADAPT Advanced) was undertaken. Qualitative (semi-structured telephone interview conducted at 3-months) and quantitative data (questionnaires collected at pre-, post-, and 3-month follow-up) were analysed. RESULTS: 27 participants partook (26 women, 56% breast cancer, mean age 56yo; average number of mental health diagnoses 1.8, with majority (81%) meeting criteria for generalised anxiety disorder). Feasibility - Unanticipated numbers (48%) of participants had physical health deterioration (cancer progression or death). iCBT had high adherence overall (completion rates: 37% did 6 lessons; 70% did 4 lessons) but adherence was higher for those whose cancer remained stable (completion rates: 43% did 6 lessons; 85% did 4 lessons). Acceptability - the intervention was acceptable to the majority of participants, with high treatment satisfaction. Advisory data was achieved regarding future versions. Potential efficacy - regardless of physical health status, participants who completed the iCBT showed a significant decrease over time in anxiety and depression symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Online therapies may be useful in assisting those living with advanced cancer dealing with clinical depression and anxiety disorders. The specific modality of clinician supervised iCBT has significant potential to be a suitable modality of online therapy.

What factors influence organisational readiness for change? Implementation of the Australian clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients (ADAPT CP).

AIMS: Translation of evidence-based psycho-oncology interventions into routine care can significantly improve patient outcomes, yet effective implementation remains challenging due to numerous real-world barriers. A key factor that may influence implementation is organisational readiness for change. This mixed method study sought to identify factors associated with organisational readiness for implementing the Australian clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients (ADAPT CP). METHODS: We collected data from multidisciplinary staff across six Australian cancer services who were preparing to implement the ADAPT CP. Services were categorised as having 'high' versus 'mid-range' organisational readiness based on a median split on the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) questionnaire (score range = 12-60). Qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews based on the Promoting Action Research in Health Services (PARiHS) framework were analysed thematically and compared for services with high- versus mid-range organisational readiness. RESULTS: Three services with high- (mean ORIC range, 52.25-56.88), and three with mid-range (range, 38.75-46.39) organisational readiness scores were identified. Staff at services reporting higher readiness described a more collaborative and proactive service culture, strong communication processes and greater role flexibility. They also reported greater confidence in overcoming anticipated barriers and clearer strategies for addressing issues. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of organisational readiness were related to distinct qualitative themes. Targeting these issues in services where readiness is mid-range or low prior to full-scale roll-out may improve staff levels of confidence and efficacy in implementing psycho-oncology-focused interventions.

Randomised controlled trial of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for clinical depression and/or anxiety in cancer survivors (iCanADAPT Early).

PURPOSE: To evaluate internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) on clinical depression and/or anxiety, distress, fear of cancer recurrence, and quality of life in cancer survivors. METHODS: Random assignation of 114 participants to iCBT or treatment-as-usual (TAU). The clinician-supervised iCBT program (iCanADAPT Early) consisted of eight lessons over 16 weeks. Self-report questionnaires occurred at baseline, midpoint, and posttreatment for both groups with 3-month follow-up for iCBT participants. A mixed modelling approach to compare groups occurred. RESULTS: iCBT was superior to TAU on all outcome measures at posttreatment. Compared with TAU, the iCBT group showed a significant decrease over time in anxiety and depression symptoms (primary outcome, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Hedges g = 1.51). Additionally the iCBT group had significantly lower general distress (Kessler-10, g = 1.56), fear of cancer recurrence (Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory, g = 0.39), and significantly higher quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, g = 0.74) at posttreatment compared with the TAU group. High adherence and satisfaction were found for iCBT with low clinician time. CONCLUSION: Clinician-supervised iCBT has significant benefits for cancer survivors with clinical depression and anxiety disorders.

Identifying indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination: a Delphi study.

AIM: Care coordination is an important aspect of the quality of cancer care but is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of valid and reliable measures. This study was conducted to identify a set of objective measures of colorectal cancer care coordination that could be included in a medical record audit tool. METHOD: A two-stage Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among a national panel of experts about the validity of 41 potential indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination that had been identified during a literature review. The expert panel comprised 20 members from the National Health and Medical Research Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Working Party plus representatives from cancer nursing/coordination, general practice and cancer consumers. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the validity of 15 of 41 potential indicators, including those that focused on practical aspects of communication (legibility, clarity, content and timeliness of hospital discharge letters, documentation of outcomes of multidisciplinary team meetings) and appropriateness (documentation of preoperative consultation with a stoma therapist, discussions and referrals for adjuvant therapy for appropriate patients, and treatment by an experienced colorectal surgeon). There was lack of consensus on the validity of indicators relating to access to and efficiency of services. CONCLUSION: The study has identified a core set of measures considered to be valid indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination. A medical record audit based on these measures could be used to monitor adequacy of cancer care coordination and will complement subjective measures based on self-reported experiences of patients and carers.

The context influences doctors' support of shared decision-making in cancer care.

Most cancer patients in westernised countries now want all information about their situation, good or bad, and many wish to be involved in decision-making. The attitudes to and use of shared decision-making (SDM) by cancer doctors is not well known. Australian cancer clinicians treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological, or urological cancer were surveyed to identify their usual approach to decision-making and their comfort with different decision-making styles when discussing treatment with patients. A response rate of 59% resulted in 624 complete surveys, which explored usual practice in discussing participation in decision-making, providing information, and perception of the role patients want to play. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of use of SDM. Most cancer doctors (62.4%) reported using SDM and being most comfortable with this approach. Differences were apparent between reported high comfort with SDM and less frequent usual practice. Multivariate analysis showed that specialisation in breast or urological cancers compared to other cancers (AOR 3.02), high caseload of new patients per month (AOR 2.81) and female gender (AOR 1.87) were each independently associated with increased likelihood of use of SDM. Barriers exist to the application of SDM by doctors according to clinical situation and clinician characteristics.