Research priorities for the pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support practice guides: a modified nominal group consensus.

Introduction: The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (costars) team is studying how to improve the quality and consistency of cancer symptom management. Methods: A 1-day invitational meeting was held 24 October 2017 in Ottawa, Ontario, to review the current evidence from costars projects and to establish research priorities for a future largescale implementation study. The meeting included 36 participants who were clinicians from adult oncology, pediatric oncology, and homecare; policymakers from national, provincial, and regional organizations; researchers; and a patient. Half the day involved summarizing evidence from four costars studies and experiences with implementing the costars symptom practice guides. The second half of the day used a modified nominal group technique to generate research questions within small groups, presentation of research questions to all participants, and two rounds of voting to reach consensus on research priorities. Results: Participants proposed 4 research categories:■ User-centred augmentation to enhance usability (for example, designing a mobile costars solution)■ Outcome measurement (for example, determining key competencies for clinicians)■ Regular renewal of costars to keep pace with evolving evidence (for example, updates for novel therapies)■ Integration into clinical practice (for example, meaningful engagement of patients and caregivers in study design). Conclusions: Across categories, the top 3 priorities were effect on health services use, competency development, and a mobile costars solution. Future research will address identified priorities, reflecting the needs and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Stakeholder collaboration will continue to guide our approach to operationalizing this priority research agenda.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) information and support needs of Chinese-speaking cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is popular among Chinese-speaking cancer patients (CSCPs), but little research examines CAM use by Canadian CSCPs. The use of CAM is controversial because of potential interactions with conventional cancer treatments. The purpose of this study was to explore CSCPs' use of CAM, sources of CAM information, and decision support needs, as well as their experience of making CAM decisions. METHODS: A sequential, multi-method research design was used: a secondary data analysis of a CAM use survey conducted in a Western Canadian regional cancer agency followed by a qualitative interpretive description approach to inquiry using semi-structured interviews with CSPCs and support persons. RESULTS: More than 65% of CSCPs reported using CAM. CSCPs favored biologically-based therapies, including traditional Chinese medicine herbs and other natural health products. Many CSCPs were using CAM without adequate culturally appropriate information and decision support. Those who made decisions spontaneously relied on peers for advice whereas deliberate decision makers sought information from multiple sources, including peers and the Internet, selecting therapies congruent with their cultural health perspectives and previous experiences with CAM. CSCPs rarely spoke with oncology healthcare providers (HCPs) about CAM use. CONCLUSIONS: CSCPs reported using CAM at rates significantly higher than for non-CSCPs. Given the predominance of biological-based therapies and the lack of consultation with oncology HCPs, it is imperative that CAM use be assessed and documented to ensure CSCPs' safety during cancer treatment. Culturally appropriate information and decision support is required to ensure that CSCPs are making safe and informed CAM decisions.

Decision making related to complementary therapies: a process of regaining control.

The process by which women with breast cancer make decisions related to using complementary therapies was investigated using grounded theory. Open-ended interviews were conducted with 16 women receiving orthodox treatment from across the breast cancer trajectory and who used a wide range of complementary therapies. Constant comparative analysis revealed that decision making regarding complementary therapies involved three interconnected sequential phases: (1) Getting something in place: covering all the bases, (2) hand-picking complementary therapies that fit: getting a personalized regimen in place and (3) living with the security of complementary therapies: fine-tuning a regimen to live with. Factors that influenced the decision-making process, both positively and negatively, were identified. Decision making related to the use of complementary therapies was perceived as a means of regaining control during experiences of uncertainty associated with breast cancer; the outcome of which was the maintenance of hope. Implications for supporting women's decision-making efforts regarding complementary therapies are presented.