Mapping gender and sexual minority representation in cancer research: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the risk of people from gender and sexual minority (GSM) groups experiencing inequities throughout the cancer continuum requires a robust evidence base. In this scoping review, we aim to map the literature on cancer outcomes among adults from GSM groups and the factors that influence them along the cancer continuum. METHODS: This mixed-methods scoping review will follow the approach outlined by JBI. We will systematically search electronic databases for literature in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to determine eligibility based on inclusion criteria, and then retrieve full text articles for data extraction. Results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Quantitative data will be qualitized through a narrative interpretation and pooled with qualitative data. We will use meta-aggregation to synthesize findings. This protocol was developed in collaboration with GSM patient and public advisors. We will engage people from GSM groups, community organizations and knowledge users in disseminating results. INTERPRETATION: This review will direct future research efforts by expanding the wider body of research examining cancer disparities across the cancer continuum that GSM groups experience, identifying literature gaps and limitations, and highlighting relevant social determinants of health that influence cancer outcomes for adults from GSM groups.

Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Following a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Quality of telephone-based cancer symptom management by nurses: a quality improvement project.

PURPOSE: To determine the quality of cancer symptom management when evidence from clinical practice guidelines are used in telephone-based oncology nursing services. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, we conducted a quality improvement (QI) project focused on "monitoring knowledge use" (e.g., use of practice guides) and "measuring outcomes." In 2016, 15 Pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) practice guides that synthesize evidence from guidelines were implemented with training for all oncology nurses at a regional ambulatory oncology program. Eighteen months post-implementation, Symptom Management Analysis Tool (SMAT) was used to analyze audio-recorded calls and related documentation of cancer symptom management. RESULTS: Of 113 audio-recorded calls, 66 were COSTaRS symptoms (58%), 43 other symptoms (38%), and 4 medically complex situations (4%). Of 66 recorded calls, 63 (95%) were documented. Average SMAT quality score was 71% (range 21-100%) for audio-recordings and 63% (range 19-100%) for documentation of calls. COSTaRS practice guide use was documented in 33% calls. For these calls, average SMAT quality scores were 74% with COSTaRS versus 69% without COSTaRS for audio-recording and 73% (range 33-100%) with COSTaRS versus 58% without COSTaRS for documentation. Patient outcomes indicated symptom was resolved (38%), worse (25%), unchanged (3%), or unknown (33%). Eight patients (13%) had an ED visit within 14 days post that was related to the symptom discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of nurses indicated use of COSTaRS practice guides. There were higher quality symptom management scores when COSTaRS use was reported. Nurses documented less than what they discussed.

Quality of telephone nursing services for adults with cancer and related non-emergent visits to the emergency department.

A quality improvement project was conducted to determine the quality of telephone nursing for patients with cancer symptoms. Eligible patients were ones who telephoned the nurse about cancer symptom(s) within four weeks prior to an emergency department (ED) visit not requiring hospital admission. Experienced oncology nurses extracting data indicated appropriateness of ED visits and opportunities for improvement. The Symptom Management Analysis Tool was used to analyze nurse documentation. For 77 patients, 87% ED visits occurred within four days of calls about symptoms (e.g., pain, breathlessness, constipation, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting) and 91% could have been managed by more complete telephone assessment and/or an urgent clinic visit. Quality of nurse documentation revealed few patients were assessed adequately (38%), received any symptom-specific medication review (49%), or were guided in self-care strategies (17%). There was low-quality telephone symptom management by nurses and a need for alternative options for patients requiring urgent face-to-face assessments. Our findings highlight a gap in use of guidelines for informing telephone symptom management.

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The expectation to include patients as partners in research has steadily gained momentum. The vulnerability of frail and/or seriously ill patients provides additional complexity and may deter researchers from welcoming individuals from this patient population onto their teams. The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as research partners across the research cycle. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy included MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO from database inception to April, 2019. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research reporting on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as partners on research teams. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise study quality. Narrative analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Of 8763 citations, 30 were included. Most studies included individuals with cancer on the research team (60%). Barriers included: lack of time and resources (50%), discontinuity in contribution (37%), and concerns for well-being (33%). Facilitators included: trust and mutual respect (60%), structural accessibility (57%), flexibility in timing and methods of engagement (43%), and attention to care and comfort, (33%). Perceived impacts for patients included: renewed personal sense of agency (37%) and emotional/peer support (37%). Impacts for researchers included sensitization to the lived experience of disease (57%) and an increased appreciation of the benefits of patient engagement (23%). Research design, execution, and outcomes, developed with patients, were deemed more suitable, relevant and reflective of patients' priorities. CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging evidence to suggest that research partnerships with frail and/or seriously ill patients can be achieved successfully. Patients mostly report benefit from partnering with research teams. Frailty and/or serious illness do present legitimate concerns for their well-being but appear to be successfully mitigated when researchers ensure that the purpose of engagement is well-defined, the timing and methods of engagement are flexible, and the practical and emotional needs of patient partners are addressed throughout the process. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019127994).