Predictors for the utilization of social service counseling by prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Social service counseling (SSC) is an important instrument to support cancer patients, for example, regarding legal support, or rehabilitation. Several countries have established on-site SSC in routine care. Previous analyses have shown that SSC utilization varies across cancer centers. This analysis investigates patient and center-level predictors that explain variations in SSC utilization between centers. METHODS: Logistic multilevel analysis was performed with data from 19,865 prostate cancer patients from 102 prostate cancer centers in Germany and Switzerland. Data was collected within an observational study between July 2016 and June 2020 using survey (online and paper) and tumor documentation. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the null model implies that 51% of variance in SSC utilization is attributable to the center a patient is treated in. Patients aged 80 years and older, with higher education, private insurance, without comorbidities, localized intermediate risk, and undergoing androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion were less likely to utilize SSC. Undergoing primary radiotherapy, active surveillance, or watchful waiting as compared to prostatectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of SSC utilization. Significant negative predictors at the center level were university hospital, center's location in Switzerland, and a short period of certification. CONCLUSION: The results show that patient and center characteristics contribute to explaining the variance in SSC utilization in prostate cancer centers to a large extent. The findings may indicate different organizational processes in the countries included and barriers in the sectoral structure of the healthcare system. In-depth analyses of processes within cancer centers may provide further insights into the reasons for variance in SSC utilization.

Codesigning a patient support portal with health professionals and men with prostate cancer: An action research study.

INTRODUCTION: The supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer (PCa) have been well documented, but little is known about how an online portal may address these. This study sought to determine priority issues facing men with PCa, barriers and enablers to accessing care and whether health professionals (HPs) and men would support the inclusion of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) comparator tool. METHODS: We conducted four online focus groups with HPs recruited from healthcare services in Victoria, followed by seven online codesign workshops with men with PCa, recruited through the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia and the Cancer Council Victoria. Men were eligible to participate if they had lived experience of PCa and access to the internet. We analysed focus groups thematically. Workshops were analysed using descriptive-content analysis. RESULTS: HPs (n = 39) highlighted that men had shifting priorities over time, but noted the importance of providing information to men in lay terms to assist in treatment decision-making and side-effect management. HPs identified key enablers to men accessing support services such as practice nurses, partners and having men share their stories with each other. HPs raised financial, cultural, geographic and emotional barriers to accessing supportive care. Inclusion of a PRO comparator tool received mixed support from HPs, with 41% (n = 16) supportive, 49% (n = 19) unsure and 10% (n = 4) not supportive. Men involved in workshops (n = 28) identified informational needs to assist in treatment decision-making and side-effect management as the top priority throughout care. Men described support groups and practice nurses as key enablers. Short consultation times and complex information were described as barriers. Unlike HPs, all men supported the inclusion of a PRO comparator tool in a portal. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a patient support portal should provide information in lay terms that address the shifting priorities of men with PCa. Men with PCa would welcome the development of a portal to centralize support information and a PRO comparator tool to prompt health-seeking behaviour. Future research will implement these findings in the development of a portal, and pilot and evaluate the portal within a population-based sample. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project adopted a codesign approach including both men with PCa and HPs involved in PCa care. Men with PCa also formed part of the study's steering committee and consumer advisory groups. HPs were consulted in a serious of online focus groups. Subsequently, men with PCa and their support persons participated in workshops. Men with PCa were also involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Expert agreed standards for the selection and development of cancer support group leaders: an online reactive Delphi study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop pragmatic, consensus-based minimum standards for the role of a cancer support group leader. Secondly, to produce a structured interview designed to assess the knowledge, skills and attributes of the individuals who seek to undertake the role. METHODS: An expert panel of 73 academics, health professionals, cancer agency workers and cancer support group leaders were invited to participate in a reactive online Delphi study involving three online questionnaire rounds. Participants determined and ranked requisite knowledge, skills and attributes (KSA) for cancer support group leaders, differentiated ideal from required KSA to establish minimum standards, and agreed on a method of rating KSA to determine suitability and readiness. RESULTS: Forty-five experts (62%) participated in round 1, 36 (49%) in round 2 and 23 (31%) in round 3. In round 1, experts confirmed 59 KSA identified via a systemic review and identified a further 55 KSA. In round 2, using agreement ≥75%, 52 KSA emerged as minimum standards for support group leaders. In round 3, consensus was reached on almost every aspect of the content and structure of a structured interview. Panel member comments guided refinement of wording, re-ordering of questions and improvement of probing questions. CONCLUSIONS: Alongside a novel structured interview, the first consensus-based minimum standards have been developed for cancer support group leaders, incorporating expert consensus and pragmatic considerations. Pilot and field testing will be used to appraise aspects of clinical utility and establish a rational scoring model for the structured interview.

Nurse-Led Supportive Care Intervention for Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the context for implementing ProsCare by prostate cancer specialist nurses (PCSNs) and, in doing so, further develop the intervention and implementation strategy. SAMPLE & SETTING: 30 PCSNs participated in four semistructured focus groups to evaluate a telephone-based supportive care intervention led by nurses for men with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS & VARIABLES: Data were coded into the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to evaluate the ProsCare program content and guide the implementation and evaluation of this targeted program for men with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS: Participants strongly endorsed specific ProsCare program components amid a recommendation of delivery mechanisms and a comprehensive centralized implementation strategy, including PCSN role promotion, education, and professional development. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: PCSNs validated ProsCare and supported its implementation as a supportive care intervention. ProsCare is a feasible nurse-led intervention closely matched with men's supportive care needs and the PCSN scope of practice.

Pragmatic, consensus-based minimum standards and structured interview to guide the selection and development of cancer support group leaders: a protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Across the globe, peer support groups have emerged as a community-led approach to accessing support and connecting with others with cancer experiences. Little is known about qualities required to lead a peer support group or how to determine suitability for the role. Organisations providing assistance to cancer support groups and their leaders are currently operating independently, without a standard national framework or published guidelines. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to generate pragmatic consensus-based minimum standards and an accessible structured interview with user manual to guide the selection and development of cancer support group leaders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will: (A) identify and collate peer-reviewed literature that describes qualities of support group leaders through a systematic review; (B) content analyse eligible documents for information relevant to requisite knowledge, skills and attributes of group leaders generally and specifically to cancer support groups; (C) use an online reactive Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts to produce a clear, suitable, relevant and appropriate structured interview comprising a set of agreed questions with behaviourally anchored rating scales; (D) produce a user manual to facilitate standard delivery of the structured interview; (E) pilot the structured interview to improve clinical utility; and (F) field test the structured interview to develop a rational scoring model and provide a summary of existing group leader qualities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Department Human Ethics Advisory Group of The University of Melbourne. The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent, with participants able to withdraw at any time. The results will be disseminated at research conferences and peer review journals. Presentations and free access to the developed structured interview and user manual will be available to cancer agencies.

Skills, knowledge and attributes of support group leaders: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis was undertaken to deduce requisite knowledge, skills and attributes of cancer support group leaders. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases were used to identify relevant literature. Inclusion criteria were made deliberately broad after pilot searches produced too few documents and included: adult group leaders who were volunteers, peers or professionals; published in English from database inception to February 2014. Data was extracted on: year of publication; country of authors' origin; study design (if relevant) and methods; group type and group leadership; sample description; and leader qualities. RESULTS: Forty-nine documents met inclusion criteria. Fourteen reported on cancer groups, 31 on non-cancer groups (including four mixed groups) and four did not specify group type. Seven qualities were deduced including group management, group process, role modelling, awareness, willingness, agreeableness, and openness. These were consistent across group type and group leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may be relevant to a general model of peer group support and can inform the development of a practical and realistic minimum standard for support group leadership in healthcare. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results can be used to help cancer agencies manage relationships with group leaders. Knowledge of requisite qualities may inform selection, training and support.