Virtual follow-up care among breast and prostate cancer patients during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: Association with distress.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between self-reported distress (anxiety/depression) and satisfaction with and desire for virtual follow-up (VFU) care among cancer patients during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Breast and prostate cancer patients receiving VFU at an urban cancer centre in Toronto, Canada completed an online survey on their sociodemographic, clinical, and technology, characteristics and experience with and views on VFU. EQ5D-5 L was used to assess distress. Statistical models adjusted for age, gender, education, income and Internet confidence. RESULTS: Of 352 participants, average age was 65 years, 48% were women,79% were within 5 years of treatment completion, 84% had college/university education and 74% were confident Internet users. Nearly, all (98%) had a virtual visit via phone and 22% had a virtual visit via video. The majority of patients (86%) were satisfied with VFU and 70% agreed that they would like VFU options after the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants who reported distress and who were not confident using the Internet for health purposes were significantly less likely to be satisfied with VFU (OR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2-0.8 and OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09-0.38, respectively) and were less likely to desire VFU option after the COVID-19 pandemic (OR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.30-0.82 and OR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.70, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents were satisfied with VFU and would like VFU options after the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should determine how to optimize VFU options for cancer patients who are distressed and who are less confident using virtual care technology.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.

Background: Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities. Objectives: We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice. Design: Realist review. Main outcome measures: Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Review methods: Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence. Results: Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships. Limitations: The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care. Conclusions: Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred. Future work: Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice. Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Health inequalities are unfair differences in health across different groups of the population. In the United Kingdom, the health inequality gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is increasing and is caused mostly by differences in long-term conditions like cancer and cardiovascular disease and respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Partly National Health Service inequalities arise in delays in seeing a doctor and care provided through doctors' surgery, such as delays in getting tests. This study explored how general practice services can increase or decrease inequalities in cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, under what circumstances and for whom. It also produced guidance for general practice, both local general practices and the wider general practice system, to reduce inequalities. We reviewed existing studies using a realist methodology. This methodology helps us understand the different contexts in which interventions work or not. We found that inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across different areas. These include funding and workforce, perceptions about health and disease among patients and healthcare staff, everyday procedures involved in care delivery, and relationships among individuals and communities. To reduce inequalities in general practice, action should be taken in all these areas and services need to be connected (i.e. linked and coordinated across the sector), intersectional (i.e. accounting for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics like their gender and socio-economic position), flexible (i.e. meeting patients' different needs and preferences), inclusive (i.e. not excluding people because of who they are) and community-centred (i.e. working with the people who will receive care when designing and providing it). There is no one single intervention that will make general practice more equitable, rather it requires long-term organisational change based on these principles.

Integrated palliative care in oncology: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests improved quality of life, reduced symptom burden and lower health services costs when integrated palliative care and cancer care are implemented. Integrated palliative care aims to achieve care continuity by integrating organisational, administrative and clinical services involved in patient care networks. However, integrated palliative care for cancer is not common practice. This project, therefore, aims to understand how integrated palliative care and cancer care works in different healthcare settings (inpatient/outpatient), and for which groups of people (at what stage of the cancer journey), so we can develop guidance for optimal delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a realist synthesis to develop a programme theory of how integrated palliative care in cancer works, for whom and in what contexts to achieve improved symptom management and quality of life for patients and their families.This realist synthesis will follow the five stages outlined by Pawson: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. We will work closely with our expert stakeholder group, which includes health and social care professionals providing palliative care and oncology; management and policy groups and members of the public and patients. We will adhere to RAMESES quality standards for undertaking a realist synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this project is not required.The realist synthesis will develop a programme theory that provides clarity on the optimal delivery of palliative care for adults with cancer. We will use the programme theory to coproduce guidance and user-friendly outputs, working with stakeholders to inform delivery of best practice. Findings will inform further research in integrated palliative care and cancer. Stakeholder engagement will assist in the dissemination of our findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023389791.

Integrating palliative care and heart failure: a systematic realist synthesis (PalliatHeartSynthesis).

OBJECTIVES: (1) Develop a programme theory of why, for whom and in what contexts integrated palliative care (PC) and heart failure (HF) services work/do not work; (2) use the programme theory to co-produce with stakeholders, intervention strategies to inform best practice and future research. METHODS: A systematic review of all published articles and grey literature using a realist logic of analysis. The search strategy combined terms significant to the review questions: HF, PC and end of life. Documents were included if they were in English and provided data relevant to integration of PC and HF services. Searches were conducted in November 2021 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED, HMIC and CINAHL. Further relevant documents were identified via monthly alerts (up until April 2023) and the project stakeholder group (patient/carers, content experts and multidisciplinary practitioners). RESULTS: 130 documents were included (86 research, 22 literature reviews, 22 grey literature). The programme theory identified intervention strategies most likely to support integration of PC and HF services. These included protected time for evidence-based PC and HF education from undergraduate/postgraduate level and continuing professional practice; choice of educational setting (eg, online, face-to-face or hybrid); increased awareness and seeing benefits of PC for HF management; conveying the emotive and intellectual need for integrating PC and HF via credible champions; and prioritising PC and HF guidelines in practice. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings outline the required steps to take to increase the likelihood that all key players have the capacity, opportunity and motivation to integrate PC into HF management. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240185.