Practical Guidance for Preparing for and Conducting Focus Groups and Interviews with Community Members for Cancer Research.

To support meaningful and productive engagement in cancer research, we provide practical guidance for preparing for and conducting focus groups and interviews with community members. We provide 11 recommendations in two printable resources: (a) a checklist for preparing for focus groups and interviews with community members, and (b) a list of practical strategies to use when conducting the focus groups and interviews. These recommendations are based on our experience facilitating 15 focus groups and 20 interviews with 52 community members to codesign the study materials for a population-wide qualitative survey for understanding the needs and experiences of adults affected by cancer in Queensland, Australia. The checklist includes six recommendations: (1) define and document recruitment procedures, (2) use diverse recruitment methods to recruit a diverse sample, (3) implement multiple strategies to prevent and detect fraudulent participant sign-ups, (4) offer flexible options for research participation, (5) develop and pilot visual session materials, and (6) nominate lead and support facilitators (focus groups only). Practical strategies include five recommendations with examples for how to implement these in practice: (1) allow time to get started, (2) invite focused participation, (3) keep track of time, (4) facilitate productive and insightful conversations, and (5) debrief after sessions for continuous quality improvement. These resources can be used by students, researchers, and health care professionals conducting focus groups and interviews with community members to optimize the consumer's experience of participation in cancer research. The recommendations presented may also be applicable in health research more broadly.

From many voices, one question: Community co-design of a population-based qualitative cancer research study.

PURPOSE: This study formed the development stage of a population-based survey aiming to: (i) understand the needs and experiences of people affected by cancer in Queensland, Australia and (ii) recruit a pool of participants for ongoing cancer survivorship research. The current study aimed to co-design and test a single qualitative survey question and study invitation materials to maximise acceptability of, and participation in, the survey and future research. METHODS: Fifty-two community members, including cancer survivors and caregivers, participated across 15 co-design workshops and 20 pretest interviews. During workshops, participants generated and refined ideas for an open-ended survey question and provided feedback on a study invitation letter. The use of a single, open-ended question aims to minimise participant burden while collecting rich information about needs and experiences. The research team then shortlisted the question ideas and revised study invitation materials based on workshop feedback. Next, using interviews, community members were asked to respond to a shortlisted question to test its interpretability and relevance and to review revised invitation materials. Content analysis of participant feedback was used to identify principles for designing study materials. RESULTS: Principles for designing qualitative survey questions were identified from participant feedback, including define the question timeframe and scope; provide reassurance that responses are valid and valued; and use simple wording. Principles for designing study invitation materials were also identified, including communicate empathy and sensitivity; facilitate reciprocal benefit; and include a 'human element'. The qualitative survey question and study invitation materials created using these principles were considered relevant and acceptable for use in a population-based survey. CONCLUSIONS: Through community consultation and co-design, this study identified principles for designing qualitative data collection and invitation materials for use in cancer survivorship research. These principles can be applied by other researchers to develop study materials that are sensitive to the needs and preferences of community members.

Data sharing in cancer research: A qualitative study exploring community members' preferences.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in cancer treatment and survivorship rely on participation in research and access to health records. METHODS: This study explored preferences for data access and sharing in 14 workshops with 42 community members, most of whom were a cancer survivor or carer. Various scenarios for data access and sharing were presented and discussed, with participants' preferences summarized using descriptive statistics. Reasons underlying these preferences were identified through a thematic analysis of workshop transcripts. RESULTS: Most participants indicated a willingness for researchers to use their self-report data and current health records for a specific research project (86%). Many were also willing for their self-report data and current (62%) or all future (44%) health records to be shared with other researchers for use in other studies if made aware of this. Willingness to consent to data access and sharing data in cancer research was influenced by: (i) the potential for data sharing to advance medical discoveries and benefit people impacted by cancer in the future, (ii) transparency around researchers' credibility and their intentions for data sharing, (iii) level of ownership and control over data sharing, and (iv) protocols for privacy and confidentiality in data sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these themes, we present practical strategies for optimizing data access and sharing in cancer research.

Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Muscular Strength Do Not Predict Social Cognitive Capacity in Older Age.

OBJECTIVES: Social cognitive function often declines in older age but the mechanisms underlying these declines are not completely clear. Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and muscular strength are positively associated with broader cognitive function in older adults, yet surprisingly, no study has examined whether a similar relationship exists between CRF or muscular strength and social cognition in older age. METHODS: We assessed whether higher CRF and muscular strength were associated with enhanced social cognitive function in a sample of fifty older adults (Mage = 70.08, standard deviation = 3.93). Participants completed a gold-standard cardiopulmonary exercise test to assess CRF, an isometric handgrip strength test to index muscular strength, and validated measures of social cognition to index emotion perception and theory of mind (ToM). RESULTS: The results showed that CRF and muscular strength did not explain any unique variance in older adults' social cognitive performance. Bayesian analyses confirmed that the evidence for the null hypothesis was moderate for all tested relationships, except for the relationship between CRF and cognitive ToM where the evidence for the null was anecdotal. DISCUSSION: This study has provided the first evidence to suggest that CRF and muscular strength-two important modifiable lifestyle factors-are not associated with social cognition in healthy older adults. However, replication studies are now needed to cross-validate these findings and to clarify whether any moderating variables may be important for understanding the relationship between fitness and social cognition in older age.

Sleep, stress and aggression: Meta-analyses investigating associations and causality.

Prior research suggests that sleep is associated with increased subjective stress and aggression, but important questions remain about the typical magnitude of these relationships, as well as their potential moderators. We therefore conducted the first meta-analysis of this literature. Across 340 associational and experimental studies, significant associations were identified between sleep with both subjective stress (r = 0.307, p < .001) and aggression (r = 0.258, p < .001) in individuals from the general population, as well as between sleep with subjective stress (r = 0.425, p < .001) in individuals with sleep disorders. Experimental sleep restriction also led to increased subjective stress (g = 0.403, p = .017) and aggression (g = 0.330, p = .042). These findings suggest that poorer sleep is associated with - and leads to - heightened levels of subjective stress and aggression. These findings, and their implications, are discussed in relation to neurobiological literature, which highlights the complex interplay between metabolic activity in the brain, hormonal changes, and behavior.