Missingness mechanisms and generalizability of patient reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer survivors - assessing the reasonableness of the "missing completely at random" assumption.

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) provide important information, however, missing PROM data threaten the interpretability and generalizability of findings by introducing potential bias. This study aims to provide insight into missingness mechanisms and inform future researchers on generalizability and possible methodological solutions to overcome missing PROM data problems during data collection and statistical analyses. METHODS: We identified 10,236 colorectal cancer survivors (CRCs) above 18y, diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 through the Danish Clinical Registries. We invited a random 20% (2,097) to participate in a national survey in May 2023. We distributed reminder e-mails at day 10 and day 20, and compared Initial Responders (response day 0-9), Subsequent Responders (response day 10-28) and Non-responders (no response after 28 days) in demographic and cancer-related characteristics and PROM-scores using linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 2,097 CRCs, 1,188 responded (57%). Of these, 142 (7%) were excluded leaving 1,955 eligible CRCs. 628 (32%) were categorized as initial responders, 418 (21%) as subsequent responders, and 909 (47%) as non-responders. Differences in demographic and cancer-related characteristics between the three groups were minor and PROM-scores only marginally differed between initial and subsequent responders. CONCLUSION: In this study of long-term colorectal cancer survivors, we showed that initial responders, subsequent responders, and non-responders exhibit comparable demographic and cancer-related characteristics. Among respondents, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were also similar, indicating generalizability. Assuming Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of subsequent responders represent answers by the non-responders (would they be available), it may be reasonable to judge the missingness mechanism as Missing Completely At Random.

Guided versus non-guided digital psychological interventions for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of engagement and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate engagement with and efficacy of guided versus non-guided digital interventions targeting psychological symptoms of cancer via a systematic review of current evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched. Eligible publications were randomised controlled trials of guided or non-guided digital psychological interventions used in cancer settings reporting intervention efficacy and/or engagement. Study methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on outcomes with sufficient data, with sub-group analyses of intervention type and follow-up period. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Studies varied by level of guidance, type of technology used, duration, and outcomes assessed. Most studies had a high overall RoB. Meta-analysis indicated that guided interventions significantly reduced distress, anxiety, and fatigue, while non-guided did not. For depression and quality of life, both guided and non-guided interventions produced significant improvements. Guided interventions reported higher levels of intervention engagement than non-guided. CONCLUSIONS: Guided digital psychological interventions were likely to be more effective than non-guided ones for cancer patients, particularly in reducing distress, anxiety, and fatigue. Whilst both types were found to improve depression and life quality, guided interventions were associated with higher patient engagement. These findings suggest digital interventions could supplement traditional cancer care, warranting further research concerning long-term effects and cost-efficiency.

Validity and screening capacity of the FCR-1r for fear of cancer recurrence in long-term colorectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Existing fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) screening measures is being shortened to facilitate clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and screening capacity of a single-item FCR screening measure (FCR-1r) in long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with no recurrence and assess whether it performs as well in older as in younger survivors. METHODS: All Danish CRC survivors above 18, diagnosed and treated with curative intent between 2014 and 2018, were located through a national patient registry. A questionnaire including the FCR-1r, which measures FCR on a 0-10 visual analog scale, alongside the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory Short Form (FCRI-SF) as a reference standard was distributed between November 2021 and May 2023. Screening capacity and cut-offs were evaluated with a receiver-operating characteristic analysis (ROC) in older (≥ 65 years) compared to younger (< 65 years) CRC survivors. Hypotheses regarding associations with other psychological variables were tested as indicators of convergent and divergent validity. RESULTS: Of the CRC survivors, 2,128/4,483 (47.5%) responded; 1,654 (36.9%) questionnaires were eligible for analyses (median age 76 (range 38-98), 47% female). Of the responders, 85.2% were aged ≥ 65. Ninety-two participants (5.6%) reported FCRI-SF scores ≥ 22 indicating clinically significant FCR. A FCR-1r cut-off ≥ 5/10 had 93.5% sensitivity and 80.4% specificity for detecting clinically significant FCR (AUC = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.94) in the overall sample. The discrimination ability was significantly better in older (AUC = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.95) compared to younger (0.87, 95% (0.82-0.92), p = 0.04) CRC survivors. The FCR-1r demonstrated concurrent validity against the FCRI-SF (r = 0.71, p < 0.0001) and convergent validity against the short-versions of the Symptom Checklist-90-R subscales for anxiety (r = 0.38, p < 0.0001), depression (r = 0.27, p < 0.0001), and emotional distress (r = 0.37, p < 0.0001). The FCR-1r correlated weakly with employment status (r = - 0.09, p < 0.0001) and not with marital status (r = 0.01, p = 0.66) indicating divergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The FCR-1r is a valid tool for FCR screening in CRC survivors with excellent ability to discriminate between clinical and non-clinical FCR, particularly in older CRC survivors.

Evaluation of the validity and screening performance of a revised single-item fear of cancer recurrence screening measure (FCR-1r).

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors, but irregularly identified in practice. Single-item FCR measures suitable for integration into broader psychosocial screening are needed. This study evaluated the validity of a revised version of the original FCR-1 (FCR-1r) and screening performance alongside the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - Revised (ESAS-r) anxiety item. METHODS: The FCR-1r was adapted from the FCR-1 and modelled on the ESAS-r. Associations between FCR-1r and FCR Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF) scores determined concurrent validity. Relationships of FCR-1r scores with variables related (e.g., anxiety, intrusive thoughts) and unrelated (e.g., employment/marital status) to FCR determined convergent and divergent validity respectively. A Receiver-Operating Characteristic analysis examined screening performance and cut-offs for the FCR-1r and ESAS-r anxiety item. RESULTS: 107 participants were recruited in two studies (Study 1, July-October 2021, n = 54; Study 2: November 2021-May 2022, n = 53). The FCR-1r demonstrated concurrent validity against the FCRI-SF (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) and convergent validity versus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (r = 0.63, p < 0.0001) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion subscale (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001). It did not correlate with unrelated variables (e.g., employment/marital status), indicating divergent validity. An FCR-1r cut-off ≥5/10 had 95% sensitivity and 77% specificity for detecting clinical FCR (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, p < 0.0001); ESAS-r anxiety cut-off ≥4 had 91% sensitivity and 82% specificity (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FCR-1r is a valid and accurate tool for FCR screening. Further evaluation of the screening performance of the FCR-1r versus the ESAS-r anxiety item in routine care is needed.

Encouraging Patients to Ask Questions: Development and Pilot Testing of a Question Prompt List for Patients Undergoing a Biopsy for Suspected Prostate Cancer.

This study assessed the acceptability and feasibility of a question prompt list (QPL) to facilitate informed treatment decision-making in men with suspected localised prostate cancer, which involves values-based choices between options with similar efficacy but different side effects. The QPL was developed through iterative consultation with consumers, clinicians and researchers. Acceptability was assessed using study-specific questions regarding QPL satisfaction and usefulness and qualitative interviews. Feasibility was determined via the proportion of men given the QPL according to medical records and the completion of standardised measures of decisional outcomes. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and univariate statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Fifty-two men consented; 34 provided data for analysis. The QPL recipients reported moderate-high content satisfaction (70.6%) and perceived usefulness in guiding appointments when receiving biopsy results (64.7%). Two main qualitative themes also indicated the QPL acceptability: (1) the freedom to ask-acceptable timing, flexible usage and usefulness of the QPL, and (2) satisfaction with the QPL content. However, only 18.4% of eligible men received the QPL, indicating limited feasibility. The QPL is safe and acceptable, but further research is needed regarding how to facilitate the uptake of the question prompt list in clinical practice.

Information overload in the context of COVID-19 pandemic: A repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychometric properties of the Coronavirus Information Overload scale (CovIO) and explore relationships between CovIO, its predictors and several health behaviours related to the COVID-19 pandemic, using Cancer Information Overload (CIO) scale results as a reference for comparison. METHODS: 2003 participants representative of the French adult population answered a self-administered questionnaire over two waves of polling (N1(June 2020)= 1003, N2(January 2021)= 1000). Respondents were randomized to fill CovIO or CIO scale. Psychometric properties of scales were evaluated with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Predictors were assessed using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: CovIO scale showed satisfactory psychometric properties (α=0.86, ω=0.86, RMSEA=0.050) without any measurement invariance issue. CovIO increased between waves of sampling and was significantly linked to education, health literacy and trust in institutions among other variables. A negative relationship between information overload and preventive behaviours was also observed. CONCLUSION: The CovIO scale is a valid tool for assessing COVID-19 information overload. The dynamical formation of information overload and links with theorised predictors, especially, health literacy are confirmed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Longitudinal designs could help better understand the potential detrimental effect of information overload and improving public health campaigns. Interventions to reduce the degree of overload are needed.

Fear of cancer recurrence among Brazilian patients with cancer: Translation and cultural adaptation of FCR4/7 and FCRI-SF measures.

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence or progression (FCR) is considered one of the most common unmet needs among patients with cancer. This study sought to translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence scale (FCR4/7) and Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF). METHODS: This study involved three phases: (1) translation and cultural adaptation of the FCR4/7 and FCRI-SF measures, (2) validity and reliability testing of the Portuguese version of these measures, and (3) examining patient's perceptions of these measures. Eligible patients were diagnosed with localized breast cancer, and patients with metastatic cancer. Descriptive analyses were collated, and psychometric analysis were conducted (confirmatory factor analysis). RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were recruited (100 patients with localized and 100 patients with metastatic cancer). A significant proportion of patients reported moderate to severe FCR (FCR7: 32.0% and FCRI-SF: 43.0%). Female gender, younger age and metastatic cancer were associated with higher levels of FCR. Psychometric analyses suggested that the Portuguese versions of the FCR4/7 and FCRI-SF were valid, unidimensional in nature, with acceptable reliability coefficients across all scales. In a sub-sample qualitative analysis (n = 75), most patients were satisfied with the relevance of both measures. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the Portuguese versions of the FCR4/7 and FCRI-SF are valid tools to assess FCR among patients with localized and metastatic cancer. Future research can now extend our understanding of FCR and assess this construct among Portuguese speaking patients, to guide the development of effective and targeted interventions for patients globally.

Fear of cancer recurrence in young women 5 years after diagnosis with a good-prognosis cancer: the VICAN-5 national survey.

PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is frequent in survivors, but less is known about FCR in long-term survivors with very low risk of relapse. Our aim was to estimate the prevalence and clinical and socio-behavioural factors associated with FCR in young women 5 years after diagnosis of a good-prognosis cancer. METHODS: Using data from the VICAN-5 survey, conducted in 2015-2016 amongst a national representative French sample of cancer survivors, we included women with non-metastatic melanoma, breast, or thyroid cancer, aged 55 years or under at diagnosis, who experienced no disease progression in the 5 years post-diagnosis. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with FCR, characterised using a three-level indicator: no, mild, and moderate/severe FCR. RESULTS: Amongst the 1153 women included, mean age was 44 years at diagnosis, and 81.8% had breast cancer, 12.5% thyroid cancer, and 5.8% melanoma. Five years after diagnosis, 35.4% reported no FCR, 46.0% mild FCR, and 18.6% moderate/severe FCR. Women with thyroid cancer were less likely to suffer from mild or moderate/severe FCR, while cancer-related treatment sequelae, fatigue, and anxiety were more likely. Limited health literacy was associated with mild FCR. Women who reported only occasionally consulting a general practitioner (GP) for the management of their cancer had a higher probability of FCR. CONCLUSION: Moderate/severe FCR affected nearly 20% of young female long-term survivors diagnosed with a good-prognosis cancer, particularly those reporting cancer-related sequelae, suffering from fatigue or anxiety, with breast cancer or melanoma (versus thyroid cancer), and consulting a GP only occasionally for cancer management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Given the recognised impact of FCR on quality of life, it is essential to detect it as early as possible, and to implement targeted interventions in routine care.

The Evaluation of the Suitability, Quality, and Readability of Publicly Available Online Resources for the Self-Management of Fear of Cancer Recurrence.

Cancer survivors often rely on the internet for health information, which has varying levels of readability, suitability, and quality. There is a need for high-quality online self-management resources for cancer survivors with fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). This study evaluated the readability, suitability, and quality of publicly available online FCR self-management resources. A Google search using FCR-related keywords identified freely available FCR self-management resources for cancer survivors in English. Resource readability (reading grade level), suitability, and quality were evaluated using relevant assessment tools. Descriptive statistics and cluster analysis identified resources with higher suitability and quality scores. Mean resource (n = 23) readability score was grade 11 (SD = 1.6, Range = 9-14). The mean suitability score was 56.0% (SD = 11.4%, Range = 31.0-76.3%), indicating average suitability and the mean quality score was 53% (SD = 11.7%, Range = 27-80%), indicating fair quality. A cluster of 15 (65%) resources with higher suitability and quality scores was identified. There were no significant associations between suitability or quality scores and the type of organisation that published the resources. Online FCR self-management resources varied in readability, suitability and quality. Resources with higher quality and suitability scores relative to other resources are identified for use by healthcare professionals and cancer survivors. Resources that are more culturally appropriate, with lower reading grade levels and detailed self-management strategies are needed.

Optimising implementation of telehealth in oncology: A systematic review examining barriers and enablers using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework.

Telehealth facilitates access to cancer care for patients unable to attend in-person consultations, as in COVID-19. This systematic review used the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate telehealth implementation and examine enablers and barriers to optimal implementation in oncology. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched between January 2011-June 2022. Eighty-two articles representing 73 studies were included. One study explicitly used the RE-AIM framework to guide study design, conduct, or reporting. Reach (44%) and implementation (38%) were most commonly reported, maintenance (5%) least commonly. Key telehealth implementation enablers included professional-led delivery, patient-centred approaches, and positive patient perceptions. Key barriers included patient discomfort with technology, limited supporting clinic infrastructure, and poor access to reliable internet connection and videoconferencing. While a patient-centred and professional-supported approach enables telehealth implementation, technology and infrastructure constraints need surmounting for sustained implementation beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear: a self-guided digital intervention for fear of cancer recurrence.

PURPOSE: Approximately 50% of cancer survivors experience moderate-severe fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Self-guided digital interventions have potential to address the high level of FCR-related unmet needs at scale, but existing digital interventions have demonstrated variable engagement and efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear, a five-module self-guided digital FCR intervention. METHODS: Eligible curatively treated breast cancer survivors were recruited. Participants reporting clinically significant FCR (≥ 13 on the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form; FCRI-SF) were given access to iConquerFear. Feasibility was indicated by > 50% of eligible participants enrolling in iConquerFear and recording moderate (≥ 120 min) or greater usage. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated via changes in self-reported FCR severity, anxiety, depression, intrusions and metacognitions from baseline to immediately and 3 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Fifty-four (83%) of 65 eligible participants enrolled in iConquerFear; six subsequently withdrew. Thirty-nine (83%) participants recorded moderate (n = 24; 120-599 min) or high (n = 15; ≥ 600 min) usage. Engagement levels increased with participant age (p = 0.043), but were lower in participants with higher baseline FCR (p = 0.028). Qualitative feedback indicated engagement was sometimes limited by difficulties with navigation and relating to featured survivors. Participants reported significantly improved FCR (mean reduction (95%CI): baseline to post-intervention - 3.44 (- 5.18, - 1.71), baseline to 3-month follow-up - 4.52 (- 6.25, - 2.78), p = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: iConquerFear is a feasible and potentially efficacious intervention for reducing FCR in breast cancer survivors. Easier navigation and more relatable examples may enhance engagement. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: iConquerFear may help address moderate but burdensome FCR levels in cancer survivors.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care.

BACKGROUND: To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. METHOD: A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of 'organizational readiness for implementing change' (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options. Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Exploring cancer patients', caregivers', and clinicians' utilisation and experiences of telehealth services during COVID-19: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted oncology. With pandemic restrictions limiting close contact between individuals, telehealth (the use of teleconferencing/videoconferencing to conduct real-time medical consultations) has been increasingly utilised. This qualitative study aimed to explore adult cancer patient, caregiver, and clinician (doctor, nurse, allied health) telehealth experiences during COVID-19 in urban and rural Australian settings and identify potential enablers and barriers to sustained telehealth implementation. METHODS: English-speaking participants completed semi-structured interviews regarding their telehealth experiences since March 2020. Interviews ceased when data saturation occurred. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12 Pro. RESULTS: Thirty-four interviews (clinician=14, patient=13, caregiver=7) were conducted from April to August 2021. Analysis generated seven themes relating to telehealth use: 1) Acceptability as a form of consultation, 2) Impacts on healthcare provision, 3) Communication & relationships, 4) Efficient form of consultation, 5) Comfort of conducting telehealth in different environments, 6) Technological barriers and 7) Future preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid uptake of telehealth during the pandemic has mostly been well-received, and telehealth can be appropriately used in oncology. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Barriers including providing appropriate facilities, technology, and telehealth training; and selecting appropriate patients must be addressed to enable sustained telehealth use in future cancer care.

What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI-SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics. METHODS: This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI-SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI-SF (range 0-36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an online mindfulness program (MindOnLine) to reduce fear of recurrence among people with cancer: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a common condition among cancer survivors that can lead to significant levels of distress, anxiety and depression. Online mindfulness programmes may provide the mechanism to support cancer survivors manage FCR and distress, and improve people's well-being over the short, medium and long term. The primary aim of this study is to determine the potential efficacy of MindOnLine, a 9 session mindfulness-based programme for survivors of breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. A formal economic programme will also be conducted. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-blind randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy and cost-efficacy of a MindOnLine programme for cancer survivors. A total of 400 people living with cancer will be recruited via online advertisements on social media platforms, peak consumer advocacy groups or through outpatient services at healthcare providers across Victoria, Australia. People will be randomly allocated to either the MindOnLine programme (n=200) or waitlist control (n=200). Participant assessments will occur at baseline, at 9 weeks and 9-month follow-up. The primary outcome is change in Fear of Recurrence Index Score total score between baseline and 9 weeks; secondary outcomes are changes in depression and anxiety, quality of life and mindfulness. The economic analysis comprises a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (20-53) and Deakin University (2020-284). All participants will be required to provide written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated in peer reviewed journals and among key stakeholder organisations including hospitals, cancer and community organisations and Government. If successful the project will be rolled out nationally with a formal implementation plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (12620000645954); Pre-results. Registered 6 June 2020, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379520&isReview=true.

The unmet supportive care needs of Chinese patients and caregivers affected by cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients and caregivers have myriad unmet needs which can have detrimental consequences on their psychosocial wellbeing. This systematic review aims to identify the unmet supportive care needs of immigrant and native Chinese cancer patients and caregivers. METHODS: We systematically searched various electronic databases (e.g. Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, etc.) from the earliest date available until January 2018. Additional studies were identified through reference lists and citation tracking. Eligibility criteria included: (a) qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods studies published in English; (b) immigrant and native Chinese cancer patients and/or caregivers (age ≥18 years); (c) unmet needs and/or their correlates. Studies were assessed for their risk of bias, and a narrative synthesis of findings was performed. RESULTS: Forty-seven papers from 45 studies met eligibility criteria. The most prevalent area of unmet needs was health system and information. Patients most commonly desired one member of the hospital to talk to about all aspects of their care. Caregivers preferred information about the patient's prognosis and likely outcome. Anxiety was most commonly associated with higher levels of health system and information needs. CONCLUSION: Chinese patients and caregivers experience a range of unmet health system and information needs, which differ depending on their stage along the cancer trajectory.

Low conflict and high satisfaction: Decisional outcomes after attending a combined clinic to choose between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict and post-treatment decisional regret have been documented in men with localised prostate cancer (LPC). However, there is limited evidence regarding decisional outcomes associated with the choice between robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiotherapy, when both treatment options are available in the public health system. There is increasing support for multidisciplinary approaches to guide men with LPC in their decision-making process. This study assessed decisional outcomes in men deciding between RARP or radiotherapy treatment before and after attending a LPC combined clinic (CC). METHODS: Quantitative longitudinal data were collected from 52 men who attended a LPC CC, where they saw both a urologist and radiation oncologist. Patients completed questionnaires assessing involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret before and after the CC, three months, six months and 12 months post-treatment. Urologists and radiation oncologists also reported their perceptions regarding patients' suitability for, openness to, perceived preferences and appropriateness for each treatment. Data was analysed using paired/independent samples t-tests and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 37, 71%) opted for RARP over radiotherapy (n = 14, 27%); one participant deferred treatment (2%). Urologists and radiation oncologists reported low agreement (κ = 0.26) regarding the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Participants reported a desire for high levels of control over their decision-making process (77.5% patient-led, 22.5% shared) and high levels of decisional satisfaction (M = 4.4, SD = 0.47) after the CC. Decisional conflict levels were significantly reduced (baseline: M = 29.3, SD = 16.9, post-CC: M = 16.3, SD = 11.5; t = 5.37, P < 0.001) after the CC. Mean decisional regret scores were 'mild' at three-months (M = 16.0, SD = 17.5), six-months (M = 18.8, SD = 18.7) and 12-months (M = 18.2, SD = 15.1) post-treatment completion. CONCLUSION: This is the first Australian study to assess decisional outcomes when patients are offered the choice between RARP and radiotherapy in the public health system. A CC seems to support decision-making in men with LPC and positively impact some decisional outcomes. However, larger-scale controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Moving beyond translation: Development of WeCope, a self-management resource for Chinese-Australian immigrants affected by cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, there are no self-management resources in Australia that support both Chinese immigrant patients affected by cancer and their caregivers. This paper reports on the development and acceptability assessment of a self-management intervention (WeCope) in terms of its scope, social and cultural relevance and sensitivity. METHODS: Using a community participatory approach in this qualitative study, patients, caregivers and community members took part in semi-structured focus groups or interviews in Cantonese, Mandarin or English to develop and provide feedback on the acceptability of 'WeCope'. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts using inductive (codes) and deductive (themes and categories) methods. RESULTS: Patients (n = 17), caregivers (n = 10) and community members (n = 2) participated. Four themes were developed, guided by the framework of cultural sensitivity in interventions: (1) content preference and satisfaction; (2) perceived usefulness and usability; (3) cultural relevance and acceptability; and (4) layout and presentation. Participants most commonly wanted more information about treatment-related issues (n = 14) and available support services (n = 14). CONCLUSION: Chinese patients and caregivers expressed overall satisfaction with the WeCope resource and provided suggestions for improvement, including provision of more treatment-related information and contact details for available support while reducing the overall resource length.

A systematic mixed studies review of fear of cancer recurrence in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer.

PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) may be equally prevalent, persistent and burdensome in cancer caregivers as in survivors. This systematic review evaluated FCR prevalence, severity, correlates, course, impact and interventions in cancer caregivers. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 1997 to May 2021. Two reviewers identified eligible peer-reviewed qualitative or quantitative studies on FCR in adult caregivers or family members of adult cancer survivors. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies and the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis and thematic synthesis occurred on quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively. RESULTS: Of 2418 papers identified, 70 reports (59 peer-reviewed articles, 11 postgraduate theses) from 63 studies were included. Approximately 50% of caregivers experienced FCR. Younger caregivers and those caring for survivors with worse FCR or overall health reported higher FCR. Most studies found caregivers' FCR levels were equal to or greater than survivors'. Caregivers' FCR was persistently elevated but peaked approaching survivor follow-up appointments. Caregivers' FCR was associated with poorer quality of life in caregivers and survivors. Three studies found couple-based FCR interventions were acceptable, but had limited efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: FCR in caregivers is prevalent, persistent and burdensome. Younger caregivers of survivors with worse overall health or FCR are at the greatest risk. Further research on identifying and treating caregivers' FCR is required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Caregiver and survivor FCR are similarly impactful and appear interrelated. Addressing FCR may improve outcomes for both cancer caregivers and survivors.