Piloting a language translation device for Mandarin-speaking patients presenting for radiotherapy treatment-assessing patient and radiation therapist perspectives.

PURPOSE: Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) cancer patients report unmet informational and emotional needs when receiving radiotherapy (RT). This feasibility study aimed to evaluate the clinical use of an instant translation device (ITD) to facilitate communication between Mandarin-speaking patients and radiation therapists (RTTs) within the Australian public RT setting. The primary aim was to assess the ability to convey information relating to daily patient care and build rapport using the device. METHODS: A single-arm prospective interventional trial was employed with patient and RTT participants. Eligible patient participants were aged 18 years or older, diagnosed with cancer, referred for RT with self-reported Mandarin as the primary language spoken at home. Patients who had previously received RT were excluded. Consenting patient participants completed a baseline assessment of health literacy (REALM-SF) and English proficiency (LexTALE). Surveys were administered to patients and consenting RTTs at the cessation of treatment, forming two distinct participant groups. Descriptive statistics were used to compare participant groups. RESULTS: Eleven patients and 36 RTTs were recruited to the study. Descriptive statistics demonstrated participant group agreement in conveying treatment instructions, though differing experiences were reported against general conversation. Although the reporting of technical difficulties was inconsistent, both groups recommended the application of the ITD within the RT domain. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study demonstrated encouraging accounts of patients and RTTs with regard to ITD use in the context of RT treatment. Expanded, multi-institutional recruitment is required to yield statistical significance, inform the impact of the device, and determine requisite training requirements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: HREC reference number: LNR/18/PMCC/115 (18/100L). HREC approval date: 10 July 2018.

Complementary therapy use in metropolitan and regional Australian radiotherapy centres; do patients report effective outcomes?

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly used with radiotherapy treatment for cancer. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of concurrent CAM, positive/negative outcomes and any variation of use across regional and metropolitan demographics. METHODS: An ethics-approved survey was provided to radiotherapy outpatients in regional and metropolitan Victoria, Australia. The survey enquired about demographical details, CAM uptake, perceived benefits/effects, source of CAM information and disclosure of use. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five patients were recruited across both sites. Patients reporting concurrent CAM use were 45 % (regional site, April-August 2012) and 47 % (metropolitan site, January-May 2013). More patients at the regional centre reported living away from home during treatment (35 vs 8 %) though this did not impact upon CAM uptake. For both sites, 60 % of CAM users felt they had been provided with sufficient CAM information with family/friends the most common source. The highest reported rationale for CAM use was the patient's choice (61 and 52 %). Only 19 % of patients at either site claimed the recommendation of a doctor was the reason for CAM use. 'Improving immune system' was the most common expectation of CAM at both sites (39 and 50 %). More than half of CAM users felt that it was effective (51 and 54 %). CONCLUSIONS: CAM use across regional and metropolitan Australia is equivalent, constitutes a substantial proportion of radiotherapy outpatients and is largely considered effective by CAM users. Healthcare professionals need to improve knowledge, communication, reporting and awareness of concurrent CAM in radiotherapy practice.

Complementary and alternative medicine use and disclosure amongst Australian radiotherapy patients.

PURPOSE: Information on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in Australian radiotherapy patients is sparse. This study investigated the type and prevalence of CAM amongst an Australian regional radiotherapy patient cohort and the disclosure of information to the consultant radiation oncologist. METHODS: A single hardcopy questionnaire survey was provided to patients regarding the use of CAM and discussion with the treating medical practitioner. The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) classification was used to group responses. The study was open for a period of 4 months, and all patients on treatment during this period were approached. RESULTS: A total of 170 questionnaires were distributed to eligible patients, and 152 patients returned a completed questionnaire (89.4 % response rate). Sixty-nine of the 152 patients (45.4 %) reported active CAM use. Of the 69 patients who used CAM, mind-body medicine (n = 54, 78.3 %) and biological-based therapies (n = 54, 78.3 %) were the commonest NCCAM group, whilst manipulative/body-based therapies (n = 44, 63.8 %), whole medical systems (n = 7, 10.1 %) and energy therapies (n = 5, 7.2 %) were the least common. The most common therapies were vitamins and mineral supplementation (n = 33, 47.8 %) and massage therapy (n = 18, 26.1 %). Of note, only 29 participants stated that they had discussed CAM therapies with their radiation oncologist. CONCLUSIONS: CAM use was prevalent amongst cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, but frequently not discussed with the treating radiation oncologist. Considering the high prevalence of CAM, further resources could be justifiably directed at providing this service for cancer patients to foster a more holistic approach to their care.