Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital health intervention to support patients with colorectal cancer prepare for and recover from surgery: study protocol of the RecoverEsupport randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the most common treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) and can cause relative long average length of stay (LOS) and high risks of unplanned readmissions and complications. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways can reduce the LOS and postsurgical complications. Digital health interventions provide a flexible and low-cost way of supporting patients to achieve this. This protocol describes a trial aiming to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverEsupport digital health intervention in decreasing the hospital LOS in patients undergoing CRC surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The two-arm randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverEsupport digital health intervention compared with usual care (control) in patients with CRC. The intervention consists of a website and a series of automatic prompts and alerts to support patients to adhere to the patient-led ERAS recommendations. The primary trial outcome is the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes include days alive and out of hospital; emergency department presentations; quality of life; patient knowledge and behaviours related to the ERAS recommendations; health service utilisation; and intervention acceptability and use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00869) and the University of Newcastle Ethics Committee (H-2015-0364). Trial findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. If the intervention is effective, the research team will facilitate its adoption within the Local Health District for widespread adaptation and implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001533886.

The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE): a cross-sectional study examining feasibility and acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Continuous quality improvement in cancer care relies on the collection of accurate data on the quality of care provided. It is suggested that such an approach should: (i) measure the patient's care experience throughout the cancer trajectory; (ii) use items and response scales that measure concrete and specific aspects of care; (iii) minimise recall bias; (iv) minimise the burden placed on patients for providing data; (v) minimise administrative burden; and (vi) collect actionable data. The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE) was developed to meet these objectives. This study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the SPACE in a sample of oncology outpatients. METHODS: The SPACE was examined in four medical oncology centres. Adult patients were approached by a research assistant prior to their scheduled consultation. Consenting participants completed the SPACE on a computer tablet. Items were tailored to the patient's cancer treatment phase. RESULTS: Of the eligible participants, 1143 consented (83%) and 1056 completed the survey (92%). The average time taken to complete the survey was 6 min 28 s. A large proportion of the sample indicated that the survey was acceptable (88-93% across three acceptability items). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the SPACE can be feasibly administered each time a patient comes to the oncology unit and is acceptable to patients. The SPACE could be used to quantify the care experiences which patients receive during their cancer care. The resulting data could be used to set benchmarks and improve the performance of cancer clinics.

Systematic review of barriers and enablers to the delivery of palliative care by primary care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for primary care practitioners to play a key role in palliative care delivery. Given this, it is important to understand their perceptions of the barriers and enablers to optimal palliative care, and how commonly these are experienced. AIM: To explore the type and prevalence of barriers and enablers to palliative care provision reported by primary care practitioners. DESIGN: A systematic review of quantitative data-based articles was conducted. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PsychINFO databases were searched for articles published between January 2007 and March 2019. DATA SYNTHESIS: Abstracts were assessed against the eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 80 articles were blind coded by a second author. Data were extracted from eligible full-texts by one author and checked by a second. Given the heterogeneity in the included studies' methods and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common barriers related to bureaucratic procedures, communication between healthcare professionals, primary care practitioners' personal commitments, and their skills or confidence. The most common enablers related to education, nurses and trained respite staff to assist with care delivery, better communication between professionals, and templates to facilitate referral to out-of-hours services. CONCLUSION: A holistic approach addressing the range of barriers reported in this review is needed to support primary care providers to deliver palliative care. This includes better training and addressing barriers related to the interface between healthcare services.

Unmet supportive care needs of haematological cancer survivors: rural versus urban residents.

Due to fewer cancer services in rural locations, rural survivors may have unique unmet needs compared to urban survivors. This study compared among rural and urban haematological cancer survivors the most common "high/very high" unmet supportive care needs and the unmet need scores for five domains (information, financial concerns, access and continuity of care, relationships and emotional health). Survivors' socio-demographics, rurality, cancer history and psychological factors associated with each unmet need domain were also explored. A total of 1511 haematological cancer survivors were recruited from five Australian state cancer registries and 1417 (1145 urban, 272 rural) allowed extraction of their residential postcode from registry records. A questionnaire that contained the Survivor Unmet Needs Survey was mailed to survivors. Dealing with feeling tired was the most common "high/very high" unmet need for rural (15.2%) and urban (15.5%) survivors. The emotional health domain had the highest mean unmet need score for rural and urban survivors. Rurality was associated with a decreased unmet emotional health domain score whereas travelling for more than 1 h to treatment was associated with increased unmet financial concerns and unmet access and continuity of care. Depression, anxiety and stress were associated with increased unmet need scores for all five domains. Unmet need domain scores generally did not differ by rurality. Travelling for more than 1 h to treatment was associated with increased unmet need scores on two domains. Telemedicine and increased financial assistance with travel and accommodation may help those travelling long distances for treatment.

The quality of patient-centred care: haematological cancer survivors' perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care have failed to measure all six patient-centredness dimensions endorsed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). This study is the first to use the Quality of Patient-Centered Cancer Care (QPCCC) measure that covers all six IOM patient-centredness dimensions to examine haematological cancer survivors' perceptions of care and characteristics associated with perceived quality of care. METHODS: Haematological cancer survivors diagnosed in the last 6 years and aged 18-80 years were recruited from two Australian state population-based cancer registries. Survivors were mailed the 48-item QPCCC measure. RESULTS: Overall, 545 haematological cancer survivors completed the measure. Areas of care most commonly identified as delivered were hospital staff showing respect to survivors (93%) and making sure the correct treatment was received (93%). Aspects of care most frequently nominated as not delivered were hospital staff helping family and friends (34%) or the survivor (32%) to find other people with similar experiences to talk to. Characteristics associated with survivors perceiving higher quality care was delivered included being employed, having private health insurance, being younger, a Non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis and more recent diagnosis. Being depressed or stressed was associated with perceived lower quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of peer support programs that allow haematological cancer survivors and families and friends to talk to others in similar situations could be improved. Using PROMs to identify areas where cancer survivors perceive improvements are needed is essential to quality improvement efforts.

A cross-sectional survey assessing the acceptability and feasibility of self-report electronic data collection about health risks from patients attending an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal Australians experience significantly worse health and a higher burden of chronic disease than non-Aboriginal Australians. Electronic self-report data collection is a systematic means of collecting data about health risk factors which could help to overcome screening barriers and assist in the provision of preventive health care. Yet this approach has not been tested in an Aboriginal health care setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of a health risk questionnaire administered on a touch screen laptop computer for patients attending an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS). METHODS: In 2012, consecutive adult patients attending an ACCHS in rural New South Wales, Australia, were asked to complete a health risk survey on a touch screen computer. Health risk factors assessed in the questionnaire included smoking status, body mass index, and level of physical activity. The questionnaire included visual cues to improve accuracy and minimise literacy barriers and was completed while participants were waiting for their appointment. RESULTS: A total of 188 participants completed the questionnaire, with a consent rate of 71%. The mean time taken to complete the questionnaire was less than 12 minutes. Over 90% of participants agreed that: the questionnaire instructions were easy to follow; the touch screen computer was easy to use; they had enough privacy; the questions were easy to understand; they felt comfortable answering all the questions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the use of a touch screen questionnaire to collect information from patients about health risk factors affecting Aboriginal Australians is feasible and acceptable in the ACCHS setting. This approach has potential to improve identification and management of at-risk individuals, therein providing significant opportunities to reduce the burden of disease among Aboriginal Australians.

Evaluation of systems-oriented public health interventions: alternative research designs.

The need to provide sound evidence of the costs and benefits of real-world public health interventions has driven advances in the development and analysis of designs other than the controlled trial in which individuals are randomized to an experimental condition. Attention to methodological quality is of critical importance to ensure that any evaluation can accurately answer three fundamental questions: (a) Has a change occurred, (b) did the change occur as a result of the intervention, and (c) is the degree of change significant? A range of alternatives to the individual randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be used for evaluating such interventions, including the cluster RCT, stepped wedge design, interrupted time series, multiple baseline, and controlled prepost designs. The key features and complexities associated with each of these designs are explored.

Access to care and impacts of cancer on daily life: do they differ for metropolitan versus regional hematological cancer survivors?

PURPOSE: Little is known about access to care for hematological cancer patients. This study explored patient experiences of barriers to accessing care and associated financial and social impacts of the disease. Metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan experiences were compared. METHODS: A state-based Australian cancer registry identified adult survivors of hematological cancers (including lymphoma, leukemia and myeloma) diagnosed in the previous 3 years. Survivors were mailed a self-report pen and paper survey. FINDINGS: Of the 732 eligible survivors, 268 (37%) completed a survey. Forty percent of participants reported at least one locational barrier which limited access to care. Only 2% reported cancer-related expenses had restricted their treatment choices. Almost two-thirds (64%) reported at least one financial or social impact on their daily lives related to cancer. The most frequently reported impacts were the need to take time off work (44%) and difficulty paying bills (21%). Survivors living in a nonmetropolitan location had 17 times the odds of reporting locational or financial barriers compared with those in metropolitan areas. Preferred potential solutions to alleviate the financial and social impacts of the disease were: free parking for tests or treatment (37%), free medications or treatments (29%), and being able to get treatment in their local region (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Providing more equitable access to care for hematological cancer patients in Australia requires addressing distances traveled to attend treatment and their associated financial and social impacts on nonmetropolitan patients. Greater flexibility in service delivery is also needed for patients still in the workforce.

Colorectal cancer risk assessment and screening recommendation: a community survey of healthcare providers' practice from a patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Family history is a common risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet it is often underused to guide risk assessment and the provision of risk-appropriate CRC screening recommendation. The aim of this study was to identify from a patient perspective health care providers' current practice relating to: (i) assessment of family history of CRC; (ii) notification of "increased risk" to patients at "moderately/potentially high" familial risk; and (iii) recommendation that patients undertake CRC screening. METHODS: 1592 persons aged 56-88 years randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), New South Wales, Australia were mailed a questionnaire. 1117 participants (70%) returned a questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty eight percent of respondents reported ever being asked about their family history of CRC. Ever discussing family history of CRC with a health care provider was significantly more likely to occur for persons with a higher level of education, who had ever received screening advice and with a lower physical component summary score. Fifty one percent of persons at "moderately/potentially high risk" were notified of their "increased risk" of developing CRC. Thirty one percent of persons across each level of risk had ever received CRC screening advice from a health care provider. Screening advice provision was significantly more likely to occur for persons who had ever discussed their family history of CRC with a health care provider and who were at "moderately/potentially high risk". CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions that integrate both the assessment and notification of familial risk of CRC to the wider population are needed. Systematic and cost-effective mechanisms that facilitate family history collection, risk assessment and provision of screening advice within the primary health care setting are required.

Development of cancer needs questionnaire for parents and carers of adolescents and young adults with cancer.

PURPOSE: In order to improve the service delivery for the parents and carers of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, it is important to develop measures which assess the specific issues and concerns faced by this group. The aims of this study were to describe the development and acceptability of a measure of unmet needs of parents and carers of AYA cancer survivors and to assess the prevalence of unmet needs among the respondents. METHODS: A literature search and focus groups with consumers and health professionals were used to inform item development. AYA cancer survivors and their parents and carers were identified from seven hospitals in Australia. Parents and carers who consented for their contact details to be released to the research team were sent a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. One mailed reminder and one phone call reminder were made to non-responders. RESULTS: The unmet needs survey consisted of eight domains and 150 items: (1) cancer treatment staff, (2) cancer treatment centre, (3) study, (4) work, (5) information, (6) feelings, (7) relationships and (8) daily life. Eighty-three parents and carers completed the survey. The mean number of high or very high unmet needs reported was 24, with information needs among the most prevalent high/very high unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire developed has demonstrable face and content validity and acceptability. Unmet needs are prevalent among parents and carers of AYA cancer survivors, suggesting the need for further psychometric testing of the measure.