Managing fatigue after cancer treatment: development of RESTORE, a web-based resource to support self-management.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to co-create an evidence-based and theoretically informed web-based intervention (RESTORE) designed to enhance self-efficacy to live with cancer-related fatigue (CRF) following primary cancer treatment. METHODS: A nine-step process informed the development of the intervention: (1) review of empirical literature; (2) review of existing patient resources; (3) establish theoretical framework; (4) establish design team with expertise in web-based interventions, CRF and people affected by cancer; (5) develop prototype intervention; (6) user testing phase 1; (7) refinement of prototype; (8) user testing phase 2; and (9) develop final intervention. RESULTS: Key stakeholders made a critical contribution at every step of intervention development, and user testing, which involved an iterative process and resulted in the final intervention. The RESTORE intervention has five sessions; sessions 1 and 2 include an introduction to CRF and goal setting. Sessions 3-5 can be tailored to user preference and are designed to cover areas of life where CRF may have an impact: home and work life, personal relationships and emotional adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to systematically 'co-create' an evidence-based and theory-driven web-based self-management intervention to support cancer survivors living with the consequences of cancer and its treatment. This is the first account of the development of a web-based intervention to support self-efficacy to manage CRF. An exploratory trial to test the feasibility and acceptability of RESTORE is now warranted.

Cancer survivors' self-efficacy to self-manage in the year following primary treatment.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors are increasingly expected to manage the consequences of cancer and its treatment for themselves. There is evidence that self-efficacy is important for successful self-management and that this can be enhanced with support. The purpose of this study was to assess self-efficacy to manage problems in the year following primary treatment. METHODS: This cross-sectional online survey included cancer survivors who had completed their treatment within the past 12 months. Self-efficacy was assessed and variables expected to be associated with self-efficacy were measured using validated scales including quality of life, well-being, illness perceptions, depression and social support. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-two respondents (mean age 50; 81% female) completed the survey. They had been treated for a range of cancers; most commonly breast (45%). Self-efficacy scores varied between individuals and according to the illness-related task to be managed. Respondents were least confident in managing fatigue and most confident in accessing information about their cancer. Individuals most likely to report low self-efficacy were women, those experiencing higher levels of pain and/or depression, lower well-being scores, lower socio-economic status, low levels of social support, or a more negative perception of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Self-efficacy to self-manage problems faced as a consequence of cancer and its treatment can vary widely in the year following treatment. Fatigue may be particularly difficult to manage. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Variations in self-efficacy highlight the importance of assessing specific problems faced and people's confidence to manage them in order to tailor appropriate self-management support.

Cost comparison of antibacterial therapies for serious infections. A New Zealand 3-hospital study.

OBJECTIVE: The first aim was to identify and determine the economic costs of the regimens currently used in 3 New Zealand hospitals in the treatment of bacterial infections in haematology patients with febrile neutropenia and in intensive care patients with severe infections. The second was to develop a spreadsheet-based decision analytic model for use by hospital decision-makers as an aid in evaluating the comparative cost of drug regimens. DESIGN AND SETTING: The research utilised time and motion and microcosting techniques. The analytical perspective adopted for the study was that of a hospital administrator or clinical manager. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if either they were treated with the imipenem/cilastatin monotherapy, or could have been treated with this regimen. The final analysis considered 360 patient-treatment days and 8 antibacterials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Drug acquisition cost ranged from 4.52 New Zealand dollars ($NZ; 1997 values) per patient-treatment day for gentamicin to $NZ104.81 for imipenem. The cost per patient-treatment day (when other cost components such as fluid additives, giving sets and needles were added) ranged from $NZ8.75 for gentamicin to $NZ129.12 for tazobactam. Drug acquisition cost, as a percentage of total drug preparation and administration cost, ranged from 52% for gentamicin to 93% for piperacillin. Giving sets and intravenous (i.v.) fluids were found to be important cost items when they were required specifically for the treatment regimen. There was a mean monitoring rate of 0.40 at a cost of $NZ6.41 per patient-treatment day for gentamicin. It was estimated that nephrotoxicity could add between $NZ23 and $NZ43 per day to the cost of aminoglycoside treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although the small sample sizes of the study mean that results should be regarded as indicative rather than conclusive, there were sufficient information to construct a working model and show how the total cost of an antibacterial regimen could be evaluated in practical terms. The important cost drivers were found to be drug cost, the use of fluids and giving sets, and monitoring.