Developing a core outcome set for evaluating medication adherence interventions for adults prescribed long-term medication in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of people prescribed medications do not take them as prescribed. There is a significant unmet need regarding the barriers to medication adherence not being addressed in primary care. There is no agreement on which outcomes should be measured and reported in trials of medication adherence interventions. OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials of medication adherence interventions in primary care for adults prescribed medications for long-term health conditions. METHODS: A list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature was developed. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing patients and their carers; primary care staff; and academic researchers with an interest in medication adherence; each outcome was scored in terms of importance for determining the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions in primary care. This was followed by two consensus workshops, where importance, as well as feasibility and acceptability of measurement, were considered in order to finalise the COS. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty people took part in Delphi Round 1 and 101 took part in Round 2. Eight people attended the workshops (four attendees per workshop). Seven outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in medication adherence trials: Health-related quality of life, number of doses taken, persistence with medicines, starting (initiating) a medicine, relevance of the medication adherence intervention for an individual, mortality, and adverse medicine events. CONCLUSIONS: This COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported in all medication adherence trials undertaken in primary care. When developing and finalizing the COS, feasibility and acceptability of collection of outcomes has been considered. In addition to the COS, medication adherence trials can choose to include outcomes to suit their specific context such as the health condition associated with their medication adherence intervention.

Cancer treatment-related decision-making among culturally and linguistically diverse older adults with cancer: A scoping review by the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Nursing and Allied Health Interest Group.

INTRODUCTION: Countries with large economies are observing a growing number of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) older adults, many of whom will be affected by cancer. Little is known about the experiences and factors that influence cancer treatment decision-making in this population. The purposes of this scoping review are: (1) to summarize the published literature on cancer treatment-related decision-making with this population; and (2) to identify potential differences in how cancer treatment decisions are made compared to non-CALD older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive multidatabase search, screening 1,139 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we analyzed the data using tabular and narrative summary. RESULTS: We extracted data from six studies that met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative and two qualitative; five from the United States and one from Canada. Three themes were identified: (1) barriers to decision-making, (2) the influence of family and friends on decisionmaking, and (3) differences in uptake and types of treatment received between CALD and non-CALD older adults. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive review of treatment decision-making among CALD older adults with cancer highlights the paucity of research in this area. The findings are limited to North American populations and may not represent experiences in other regions of the world. Future research should focus on studying their treatment-related decision-making experiences to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population.

A scoping review of ageism towards older adults in cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Ageism towards older adults with cancer may impact treatment decisions, healthcare interactions, and shape health/psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) To synthesize the literature on ageism towards older adults with cancer in oncology and (2) To identify interventions that address ageism in the healthcare context applicable to oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted an exhaustive multi-database search, screening 30,926 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we conducted tabular, narrative, and textual synthesis. RESULTS: We extracted data on 133 papers. Most (n = 44) were expert opinions, reviews, and letters to editors highlighting the negative impacts of ageism, expressing the need for approaches addressing heterogeneity of older adults, and calling for increased clinical trial inclusion for older adults. Qualitative studies (n = 3) described healthcare professionals' perceived influence of age on treatment recommendations, whereas quantitative studies (n = 32) were inconclusive as to whether age-related bias impacted treatment recommendations/outcomes or survival. Intervention studies (n = 54) targeted ageism in pre/post-licensure healthcare professionals and reported participants' improvement in knowledge and/or attitudes towards older adults. No interventions were found that had been implemented in oncology. DISCUSSION: Concerns relating to ageism in cancer care are consistently described in the literature. Interventions exist to address ageism; however, none have been developed or tested in oncology settings. Addressing ageism in oncology will require integration of geriatric knowledge/interventions to address conscious and unconscious ageist attitudes impacting care and outcomes. Interventions hold promise if tailored for cancer care settings. 249/250.

Facilitating healthcare practitioners to deliver self-management support in adult cancer survivors: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Supporting cancer survivors in self-management can empower them to take an active role in managing the long-term physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare practitioners are key to supporting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aimed to establish what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to facilitating healthcare practitioners to provide self-management support in people living with long-term consequences of cancer treatment. METHODS: The review follows five steps: define the review's scope, develop initial programme theories, evidence search, selection and appraisal, and data extraction and synthesis. Database searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases, to September 2019 were supplemented with practitioner surveys. Insights into the mechanisms that operate in particular contexts to produce successful outcomes were illustrated using realist programme theories, developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data selection was based on relevance and rigour. Data were extracted and synthesised iteratively to illuminate causal links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. RESULTS: Five programme theories were identified from 20 included articles and seven practitioner surveys: practitioners will engage patients in discussions about self-management if they have appropriate (1) knowledge and (2) consultations skills, (3) a clear understanding of their self-management support role and responsibilities, and if (4) organisational strategies and (5) health system configuration enable integration into routine care. The mechanisms facilitating practitioners to support self-management were practitioner confidence, mutual trust and shared responsibility between practitioners and cancer survivors, organisational prioritisation and ease of delivery of self-management support. CONCLUSION: The findings articulate the necessary components for embedding self-management support into routine cancer care. Operationalisation of these components into effective self-management support interventions will require reconfiguration of pathways and adaptation for local context, using strategies such as quality improvement and co-design to guide intervention development, implementation and evaluation.

A review of trial and real-world data applying elements of a realist approach to identify behavioural mechanisms supporting practitioners to taper opioids.

This evidence synthesis applying realist concepts and behavioural science aimed to identify behavioural mechanisms and contexts that facilitate prescribers tapering opioids. We identified relevant opioid-tapering interventions and services from a 2018 international systematic review and a 2019 England-wide survey, respectively. Interventions and services were eligible if they provided information about contexts and/or behavioural mechanisms influencing opioid-tapering success. A stakeholder group (n = 23) generated draft programme theories based around the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. We refined these using the trial and service data. From 71 articles and 21 survey responses, 56 and 16 respectively were included, representing primary care, hospital, specialist pain facilities and prison services. We identified 6 programme theories comprising 5 behavioural mechanisms: prescribers' knowledge about how to taper; build prescribers' beliefs about capabilities to initiate tapering discussions and manage psychological consequences of tapering; perceived professional role in tapering; the environmental context enabling referral to specialists; and facilitating positive social influence by aligning patient: prescriber expectations of tapering. No interventions are addressing all 6 mechanisms supportive of tapering. Work is required to operationalise programme theories according to organisational structures and resources. An example operationalisation is combining tapering guidelines with information about local excess opioid problems and endorsing these with organisational branding. Prescribers being given the skills and confidence to initiate tapering discussions by training them in cognitive-based interventions and incorporating access to psychological and physical support in the patient pathway. Patients being provided with leaflets about the tapering process and informed about the patient pathway.

International trends in cancer incidence in middle-aged and older adults in 44 countries.

OBJECTIVE: We examine international incidence trends of lung, colorectal, prostate, and breast cancers, as well as all cancers combined excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in adults aged 50 and older, over a fifteen-year period using data from 113 high quality population-based cancer registries included in the Cancer in Five Continents (CI5) series and NORDCAN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated annual incidence rates between 1998 and 2012 for ages 50-64, 65-74, and 75+, by sex and both sexes combined. We estimated average annual percentage change (AAPC) in rates using quasi-Poisson regression models. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2012, incidence trends for all cancers (excluding NMSC) have increased in most countries across all age groups, with the greatest increase observed in adults aged 75+ in Ecuador (AAPC = +3%). Colorectal cancer incidence rates increased in the majority of countries, across all age groups. Lung cancer rates among females have increased but decreased for males. Prostate cancer rates have sharply increased in men aged 50-64 with AAPC between 5% and 15% in 24 countries, while decreasing in the 75+ age group in 21 countries, by up to -7% in Bahrain. Female breast cancer rates have increased across all age groups in most countries, especially in the 65-74 age group and in Asia with AAPC increasing to 7% in the Republic of Korea. CONCLUSIONS: These findings assist with anticipating changing patterns and needs internationally. Due to the specific needs of older patients, it is urgent that cancer systems adapt to address their growing number.

Realist review protocol for understanding the real-world barriers and enablers to practitioners implementing self-management support to people living with and beyond cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Self-management support can enable and empower people living with and beyond cancer to take an active role in managing long-term consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare professionals are key to promoting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aims to understand what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to practitioners engaging with supporting people living with and beyond cancer to self-manage long-term consequences of systemic anticancer treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow five steps for undertaking the realist review: (1) define the review scope, (2) develop initial programme theories, (3) evidence search, (4) selection and appraisal and (5) data extraction and synthesis. We will combine an informal literature search with a theory-based approach, using the theoretical domains framework, and stakeholder feedback to develop initial programme theories. We will search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases to September 2019, and supplement this with citation tracking, grey literature and practitioner surveys. Data selection will be based on relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised iteratively, and causal links between contexts, mechanism and outcomes illuminated in the process. The results will be reported according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval through the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia (ref 2 01 819-124). We will disseminate to the research community through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed journal article. We will work with healthcare organisations, cancer charities and patients to agree a strategy for disseminating to these groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019120910.

Adapting care for older cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) COVID-19 Working Group.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a barrier to equal and evidence-based management of cancer in older adults. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) formed a panel of experts to develop consensus recommendations on the implications of the pandemic on several aspects of cancer care in this age group including geriatric assessment (GA), surgery, radiotherapy, systemic treatment, palliative care and research. Age and cancer diagnosis are significant predictors of adverse outcomes of the COVID-19 infection. In this setting, GA is particularly valuable to drive decision-making. GA may aid estimating physiologic reserve and adaptive capability, assessing risk-benefits of either providing or temporarily withholding treatments, and determining patient preferences to help inform treatment decisions. In a resource-constrained setting, geriatric screening tools may be administered remotely to identify patients requiring comprehensive GA. Tele-health is also crucial to ensure adequate continuity of care and minimize the risk of infection exposure. In general, therapeutic decisions should favor the most effective and least invasive approach with the lowest risk of adverse outcomes. In selected cases, this might require deferring or omitting surgery, radiotherapy or systemic treatments especially where benefits are marginal and alternative safe therapeutic options are available. Ongoing research is necessary to expand knowledge of the management of cancer in older adults. However, the pandemic presents a significant barrier and efforts should be made to ensure equitable access to clinical trials and prospective data collection to elucidate the outcomes of COVID-19 in this population.