Drivers and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in Australians with cancer.

PURPOSE: To understand the drivers and barriers for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer in Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional, online survey, distributed nationally following the establishment of community vaccination programs, wider availability of COVID-19 vaccines and emergence of new variants. Consisting of 21 questions, the survey was designed to determine the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination, participant demographics, underlying disease and treatment, and vaccination status. It was open from the 10th of August 2021 to the 7th of September 2021, recruiting people who had a previous history of cancer (diagnosed or treated in the past 5 years). RESULTS: A total of 1506 responses were included in the final analysis. Overall, 87.8% reported a positive attitude toward vaccination and 83.1% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (for self and others) and engagement with a trusted health professional were key drivers for vaccination, while concerns about vaccine development, safety and side effects were barriers. Concerns about vaccination mostly stemmed from a place of misinformation, rather than a broader disregard of vaccines. Just over a third (497, 34.3%) of the respondents were concerned that the vaccine would impact their cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants had positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and thought it was safe. Findings supported the role of health professionals and cancer organisations as trusted information providers and calls for more, credible information to help people with cancer make informed decisions about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. RESULTS: We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: -1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD -1.05, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI: -2.19 to -1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78-48 fewer). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for the Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a prominent form of cancer diagnosed in men living in developed countries, for which radical prostatectomy is a common frontline treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) is more effective in the treatment of localised prostate cancer, compared to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) was performed up until December 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that offered a direct comparison of laparoscopic and robotic techniques were eligible for inclusion in this review. RESULTS: A total of 93 articles were identified through the literature search, of which 2 were included in this review. Meta-analysis of 2 studies identified a significantly higher rate of return of erectile function in the RALP group (relative risk (RR) 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19, 1.92). A similar effect was observed with return to continence function (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04, 1.24). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers the first evaluation of evidence from RCTs with respect to the effectiveness of RALP and LRP in the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Preliminary results suggest that RALP was more efficient at preserving the erectile function and continence in comparison to LRP.

Improving Access to Cancer Clinical Trials for Patients From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Survey of Clinical and Research Professionals.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer from racial and ethnic minorities, referred to as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) in Australia, are significantly under-represented in cancer clinical trials. We performed a national survey of the Australian cancer clinical trials workforce to determine barriers and preferred solutions to address this inequity. METHODS: A 15-item online survey containing both closed- and open-ended purpose-designed questions was created using REDCap. The survey was emailed to members of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Medical Oncology Group of Australia, and Australian cancer cooperative trial groups, and promoted via Twitter. Descriptive analyses summarized quantitative data, and free-text entries underwent thematic analysis with NVivo Version 12. RESULTS: Ninety one respondents completed the survey-with representation across Australia. Eighty-seven percent were directly involved in clinical trial recruitment. Sixty-eight percent were clinicians. Seventy-four percent of respondents did not collect routine data on CALD patient enrollment to cancer clinical trials. Communication (eg, lack of translated materials) and opportunity-related barriers (eg, exclusionary trial protocols) were the most frequently perceived barriers to recruitment. Additionally, qualitative analysis indicated that insufficient consultation time and difficulties accessing interpreters for patients with non-English language preference were significant barriers. Trial navigators and a generic cancer trial pamphlet available in multiple languages were judged the most likely solutions to improve recruitment. CONCLUSION: This study articulates the Australian clinical trials workforce's perspective on current barriers and potential solutions to the under-representation of patients from CALD backgrounds on cancer clinical trials. The insights and solutions from this survey provide steps toward achieving equity in Australian cancer clinical trials.

Systems-Level Change to Alleviate Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Access for Adolescents and Young Adults in Australia.

Purpose: International data demonstrate association between clinical trial participation and reduced cancer mortality. Adolescents and young adults (AYA) have low clinical trial enrollment rates. We established a program to understand local barriers and develop targeted solutions that lead to greater AYA clinical trial participation. Methods: A steering committee (SC) with expertise in adult and pediatric oncology, research ethics, and consumer representation was formed. The SC mapped barriers related to AYA trial access and established working groups (WGs) around three themes. Results: The Regulatory Awareness WG identified a lack of understanding of processes that support protocol approval for clinical trials across the AYA age range. A guideline to raise awareness was developed. The Access WG identified challenges for young adults (18-25 years) to access a pediatric hospital to enroll in a pediatric trial. A procedure was developed to streamline applications for access. The first six applications using this procedure have been successful. The Availability WG identified lack of pediatric-adult oncology reciprocal relationships as a barrier to awareness of open trials, and future collaboration. An AYA Craft Group Framework was established to grow relationships within tumor streams across institutions; two craft groups are now operating locally. An additional achievement was a successful request to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for Australian adoption of the Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials. Conclusion: This multipronged approach to improving AYA clinical trial access has relevance for other health environments. Our knowledge products are available as an online toolkit.

What are the attributes of a good health educator?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the attributes that students and educators believe are important to being a good health educator in a non-clinical setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of first-year health science students and educators involved with a Health Science course in Melbourne, Australia was performed. A convenience sampling approach was implemented, with participants were required to rate the importance of teaching attributes on a previously developed 15-item written questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were generated, with Pearson's chi-square statistics used to examine differences between groups. In total 94/147 (63.9%) of students and 15/15 (100%) of educators participated in the study. RESULTS: Of the 15 attributes, only 'scholarly activity' was not deemed to be not as an important attribute to define a good educator. Knowledge base (50% vs. 13.3%) and feedback skills (22.3% vs. 0%) were rated as important attributes by students in comparison to educators. Professionalism (20% vs. 5.3%), scholarly activity (20% vs. 3.2%) and role modelling (26.7% vs. 3.2%) were rated as the most important attributes by educators in comparison to students. CONCLUSIONS: No single attribute makes a good health educator; rather health educators are required to have a rounded approach to teaching. Students have greater focus on the educator providing a transfer of knowledge. Educators are additionally focused on professionalism attributes, which may not be valued by students. Students and educators must enter into a clearer understanding of expectations, from both parties, to obtain optimal education outcomes.