A systematic review to explore the effectiveness of physical health and psychosocial interventions on anxiety, depression and quality of life in people living with blood cancer.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Anxiety and depression are more prevalent in hematological cancer patients who experience unpredictable illness trajectories and aggressive treatments compared to solid tumor patients. Efficacy of psychosocial interventions targeted at blood cancer patients is relatively unknown. This systematic review examined trials of physical health and psychosocial interventions intending to improve levels of anxiety, depression, and/or quality of life in adults with hematological cancers. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed and CINAHL databases were used to perform a systematic review of literature using PRISMA guidelines. DATA EVALUATION/SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials of 3232 participants were included. Thirteen studies were physical therapy, nine psychological, five complementary, one nutritional and one spiritual therapy interventions. Improvements were found in all therapy types except nutritional therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that included personal contact with clinicians were more likely to be effective in improving mental health than those without. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL ONCOLOGY: Various psychosocial interventions can be offered but interactive components appear crucial for generating long-standing improvements in quality of life, anxiety and depression.

Availability and quality assessment of online nutrition information materials for pelvic cancer patients in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Written information can be an essential source of support in the promotion of lifestyle changes after a cancer diagnosis. This study aimed to identify and assess the quality of available online patient information materials (PIMs) in relation to diet and nutrition for patients with pelvic cancer. METHODS: The online sources of the National Health Service, cancer centres and charitable organisations throughout the UK were searched. Content was assessed using an evidence-based checklist, and readability with two validated formulas. Consumer feedback was sought through patient and public involvement (PPI) groups. RESULTS: Forty PIMs were identified; four were designed specifically for pelvic cancers (bladder, bowel, prostate) and 36 were generic (relevant for all cancers). Most PIMs had a good content score, with PIMs from charities scoring higher overall than PIMs from cancer centres [32 (4) vs. 23 (11), p < 0.001]. Seventy-three percent of PIMs had a readability score within acceptable levels (6th-8th grade; reading ability of 11-14 year-olds). PPI contributors found most PIMs useful and comprehensive but lacking specific information needed to meet individual needs. CONCLUSION: There is limited availability of online PIMs for cancer survivors and even fewer tailored to pelvic cancers. Most materials have comprehensive content and acceptable readability. Some PIMs may require improvement.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise­from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists­has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care­its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families­are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of personalised care after treatment for prostate cancer (TOPCAT-P): nurse-led holistic-needs assessment and individualised psychoeducational intervention: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is common and the incidence is increasing, but more men are living longer after diagnosis, and die with their disease rather than of it. Nonetheless, specific and substantial physical, sexual, emotional and mental health problems often lead to a poor quality of life. Urology services increasingly struggle to cope with the demands of follow-up care, and primary care is likely to play the central role in long-term follow-up. The present phase II trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led, person-centred psychoeducational intervention, delivered in community or primary care settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prostate cancer survivors diagnosed in the past 9-48 months and currently biochemically stable will be identified from hospital records by their treating clinician. Eligible men would have either completed radical treatment, or would be followed up with prostate specific antigen monitoring and symptom reporting. We will recruit 120 patients who will be randomised to receive either an augmented form of usual care, or an additional nurse-led intervention for a period of 36 weeks. Following the health policy in Wales, the intervention is offered by a key worker, is promoting prudent healthcare and is using a holistic needs assessment. Outcome measures will assess physical symptoms, psychological well-being, confidence in managing own health and quality of life. Healthcare service use will be measured over 36 weeks. Feedback interviews with patients and clinicians will further inform the acceptability of the intervention. Recruitment, attrition, questionnaire completion rates and outcome measures variability will be assessed, and results will inform the design of a future phase III trial and accompanying economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Bangor University and North Wales REC (13/WA/0291). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications, at scientific conferences, and directly through national cancer and primary care networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 34516019.

Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service has recently begun the introduction of a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), offering biennial screening to men and women aged 60-69 years. This study aimed to explore public perceptions regarding the communication of information designed to facilitate informed choice in relation to this new screening programme. METHODS: Fourteen single sex focus groups were conducted in England with 86 individuals aged 60-69 years. Focus groups were conducted either with individuals who had participated in the pilot phase of the BCSP, or with members of the public living outside the pilot areas. RESULTS: The majority of participants expressed positive attitudes towards bowel cancer screening, identifying items highlighting the benefits of the programme as important for others to know. Whilst some believed it was appropriate for information regarding the potentially negative aspects of the programme to be communicated at the outset, others expressed concerns about the generation of anxiety and potential for decreased participation. A number of participants questioned the concept of informed choice, arguing that once in place, a screening programme should be vigorously promoted. CONCLUSIONS: There is some variation in the type of information favoured by those eligible for bowel cancer screening. This may present challenges for the provision of information aiming to facilitate informed choice in the BCSP. Flexible approaches to information provision that recognize the perceptions of patients may be required.