The beautiful game bringing families together: children's and parents' experiences of a family football programme.

Children are consistently not achieving recommended levels of physical activity (PA) despite it being a compulsory requirement of the national curriculum in England. Fruit and vegetable consumption also falls below recommended levels for both adults and children. With school PA increasingly being outsourced, football foundations (linked to professional football clubs) are now prominent providers of children's PA. However, research exploring coach-led interventions in schools is limited with a particular gap in knowledge surrounding the qualitative experiences of children and parents/carers. The current study therefore aimed to explore the experiences of children and parents engaged in a 6-week family football programme. Family football is a free after-school programme engaging parents/carers and their children, to enhance their engagement in PA and healthy nutritional habits. A purposive sample of parents/carers and their children (N = 36) took part in qualitative focus groups to discuss their experiences of participating in family football. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed two themes: (i) healthy lifestyle facilitators and challenges and (ii) added value of programme participation. Children discussed programme content around nutritional practices and parents/carers discussed examples of where nutritional practices had improved at home, though some parents/carers and children highlighted persistent barriers to health improvement. Both parents/carers and children reflected on how the programme had enabled them to spend dedicated time with one another. The findings emphasize the significance of direct parent/carer involvement in school-based health interventions as well as the value of coach-led interventions in the enhancement of PA enjoyment, nutritional knowledge and connectedness of families within schools.

The Epidemiology of Intensive Care Unit Readmissions and Proposed Discharge Protocol for a Tertiary Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Unit (ICU) readmissions during the same hospitalization are associated with increased hospital stays, morbidity and mortality. Whereas mortality rates in patients admitted to the ICU for the first time may range from 10 to 20% depending on various factors, readmission mortality rates can be up to 50 to 70%. Factors leading to readmission in ICU in Indian Armed Forces Hospitals have not been well studied till date. METHODS: This was a record based cross sectional descriptive study conducted at the ICU of a tertiary care Armed Forces hospital. Demographic and clinical data of ICU patients were analysed. ICU admission and discharge data for the duration of last three years were acquired from admission and discharge registers and Hospital Informatics system (HIS) software. The primary outcome was readmission rates to ICU during the same hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included diagnosis at time of index admission (first time admission) to ICU and at readmission, multiple readmissions to ICU and mortality rates in readmitted patients. RESULTS: There were 3021 admissions to the ICU during the study period. 422 patients succumbed to illness during initial admission resulting in a mortality rate of 14%. 198 patients were readmitted to the ICU. The readmission rate to the ICU was 7.8%. The mortality rate in readmitted patients was 31% as compared to the ICU mortality rate of 14%. The triggering factors for readmission were usually respiratory or cardiac decompensations. CONCLUSION: Readmission to ICU occurred in about 7.8 % of all ICU patients in our study. ICU readmissions increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Objective measures in the form of a discharge protocol incorporating the stability and work index for transfer (SWIFT Score) may help minimizing readmission to ICU. Such protocols must be in place while shifting any patients from ICU so as to improve outcomes in patients of tertiary care hospitals.

Acceptability and accuracy of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for surveillance of breathlessness in routine lung cancer care: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness in lung cancer negatively impacts on quality of life but often goes undetected and undertreated in clinical practice. There is a need for routine surveillance for early identification and proactive management of breathlessness using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care but it is unclear what PROMs should be used or are accurate for use in routine care. METHODS: We used mixed-methods (quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews) to examine the predictors of breathlessness in 339 lung cancer participants and acceptability of PROMs. In addition to multivariate analysis to examine predictors of dyspnea, participants completed an acceptability survey and themes were derived for the qualitative data (n = 26) to explore patient experience of PROMs. We also tested the accuracy of PROMs using a Receiver Operating Characteristic and Area Under the Curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients completed the breathlessness PROMs and acceptability survey and 26 patients participated in an in-depth interview to investigate their experiences of breathlessness and its PROMs. Prevalence of breathlessness was 51.9 % (n = 176) and 70.5 % of patients preferred the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale followed by the Breathlessness Intensity (BI) scale (63.7 %) among the five measures for breathlessness- Modified Borg Scale (MBS), Cancer Dyspnea Scale (CDS), MRC, BI, and Breathlessness Distress (BD). The finding showed wide variation in the MRC grades across the BI rating even among patients with the same BI score. AUC scores for the Borg scale was 0.71 (using MRC cut-off score of < 2), for CDS, 0.72, for BD, 0.70, and for BI 0.79. For an MRC score of 2, the Borg score cut-off was 0.8 (optimal sensitivity, 50 %; specificity, 93.3 %); the cut-off score of CDS, BD, BI score was 1.4 (optimal sensitivity, 67.1 %; specificity, 70 %), 1.5 (optimal sensitivity, 57.5 %; specificity, 73.3 %), and 1.5 (optimal sensitivity, 72.6 %; specificity, 83.3 %) respectively. AUC by ROC analysis for breathlessness and modest concordance among five PROMs showed important gaps between the individuals' experience and PROMs data. Three main themes from qualitative data included 1) Making sense of symptom reporting, 2) Valuing the reported data, 3) Managing the symptom of breathlessness. CONCLUSION: This study examined measurement of breathlessness using PROMs for routine clinical care and showed that severity measures alone do not accurately detect this symptomnor the experiential dimensions of breathlessness that are critical to guide appropriate intervention.

Development and prospective evaluation of CAPLET, a cancer ambulatory patient physical function longitudinal evaluation tool for routine clinical practice.

PURPOSE: A patient's physical function is a critical outcome variable for measuring and improving chronic care management. However, patient-reported outcome measures of physical function are not routinely assessed in cancer outpatients, in part due to limitations of tools available. This study presents the development and evaluation of the Cancer Ambulatory Patient Physical Function Longitudinal Evaluation Tool (CAPLET) as an adaptive response tool for routinely screening for physical dysfunction in oncology clinical practice. METHODS: In phase 1, 407 adult outpatients at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre completed the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), EuroQuol-5D-3L ( EQ-5D-3L), and patient-reported outcome (PRO)-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). CAPLET was developed based on a branching logic algorithm navigating patients to appropriate domains of HAQ-DI/WHOAS using their responses to the PRO-ECOG/EQ-5D-3L as screeners. Sensitivity/specificity of CAPLET screeners for HAQ-DI/WHODAS items were reported. In phase 2, CAPLET vs the WHODAS/HAQ-DI were alternatively administrated to 318 adult outpatients in a two-arm trial comparing time to completion and acceptability between the tools. RESULTS: Using a patient's ECOG status and the sum of the mobility, self-care, and usual activity dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L to dichotomize patients as with or without difficulty, CAPLET achieved a sensitivity > 90% against recommended WHODAS and HAQ-DI cutoffs for significant dysfunction. Sensitivity of screeners for capturing dysfunction in individual WHODAS/HAQ-DI items ranged from 85 to 100%. Compared to the HAQ-DI/WHODAS, CAPLET was associated with a 50% reduction in administration times and improved patient acceptability, while reducing question burden by 84% for half the sample population. CONCLUSIONS: CAPLET improves the feasibility of capturing detailed assessments of patient-reported physical function in cancer outpatients.

Routine Surveillance of Chemotherapy Toxicities in Cancer Patients Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

INTRODUCTION: Systematic documentation of chemotoxicities in outpatient clinics is challenging. Incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical workflows can be an efficient strategy to strengthen the assessment of symptomatic treatment toxicities in oncology clinical practice. We compared the adequateness, feasibility, and acceptability of toxicity documentation using systematic, prospective, application of the PRO Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) tool. METHODS: At a comprehensive cancer center, data abstraction of electronic health record reviews elucidated current methods and degree of chemotoxicity documentation. Web-based 32-item PRO-CTCAE questionnaires, administered in ambulatory clinics of patients receiving chemotherapy, captured chemotoxicities and respective severities. Patient telephone surveys assessed whether healthcare providers had addressed chemotoxicities to the patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Over a broad demographic of 497 patients receiving chemotherapy, 90% (95% CI 84-96%) with significant chemotoxicities (n = 107) reported that their providers had discussed toxicities with them; of these, 70% received a therapy management change, while among the rest, 17% desired a change in management. Of patients surveyed, 91% (95% CI 82-99%) were satisfied with their current chemotoxicity management. Clinician chart documentation varied greatly; descriptors rather than numerical grading scales were typically used. Although 93% of patients were willing to complete the PRO survey, only 50% thought that it would be acceptable to complete this survey at routine clinic visits. CONCLUSION: Use of PRO-CTCAE in routine clinical practice promotes systematic evaluation of symptomatic toxicities and improves the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of clinician documentation; however, methods to improve patient willingness to complete this tool routinely are needed.

Real-World EQ5D Health Utility Scores for Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer by Molecular Alteration and Response to Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Economic analyses of upcoming treatments for lung cancer benefit from real-world health utility scores (HUSs) in an era of targeted therapy. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre evaluated 1571 EQ5D-3L-derived HUSs in 475 outpatients with metastatic lung cancer across various disease states. Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (n = 183) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) (n = 38) driver alterations were enriched through targeted enrolment; patients with wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer (WT NSCLC) (n = 224) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (n = 30) were sampled randomly. RESULTS: For patients stable on most appropriate treatment, the mean HUSs were 0.81 and 0.82 in patients receiving EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) respectively (with similar HUSs across agents), which were higher than patients with WT NSCLC (0.78; P = .04) and SCLC receiving chemotherapy (0.72; P = .06). In mutation-specific comparisons, disease stability on appropriate therapy resulted in significantly higher mean HUSs (P < .002-.02) than when disease was progressing (mean HUS: EGFR, 0.70; ALK, 0.69; WT NSCLC, 0.66; SCLC, 0.52). When evaluating treatment-related toxicities, significant inverse relationships were observed between HUS and the severity of fatigue and decreased appetite in the EGFR group. There was also a significant inverse relationship between the total number of clinically significant symptoms and HUS, both in patients who were EGFR-mutated and patients with WT NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: In a North American setting, HUSs generated from patients with metastatic lung cancer are higher in treated, stable patients carrying driver mutations. This is partially explainable by treatment toxicity and patient symptom differences. Such differences in scores should be considered in economic analyses.