Development of Web-Based Education Modules to Improve Carer Engagement in Cancer Care: Design and User Experience Evaluation of the e-Triadic Oncology (eTRIO) Modules for Clinicians, Patients, and Carers.

BACKGROUND: Carers often assume key roles in cancer care. However, many carers report feeling disempowered and ill-equipped to support patients. Our group published evidence-based guidelines (the Triadic Oncology [TRIO] Guidelines) to improve oncology clinician engagement with carers and the management of challenging situations involving carers. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate implementation of the TRIO Guidelines in clinical practice, we aimed to develop, iteratively refine, and conduct user testing of a suite of evidence-based and interactive web-based education modules for oncology clinicians (e-Triadic Oncology [eTRIO]), patients with cancer, and carers (eTRIO for Patients and Carers [eTRIO-pc]). These were designed to improve carer involvement, communication, and shared decision-making in the cancer management setting. METHODS: The eTRIO education modules were based on extensive research, including systematic reviews, qualitative interviews, and consultation analyses. Guided by the person-based approach, module content and design were reviewed by an expert advisory group comprising academic and clinical experts (n=13) and consumers (n=5); content and design were continuously and iteratively refined. User experience testing (including "think-aloud" interviews and administration of the System Usability Scale [SUS]) of the modules was completed by additional clinicians (n=5), patients (n=3), and carers (n=3). RESULTS: The final clinician module comprises 14 sections, requires approximately 1.5 to 2 hours to complete, and covers topics such as carer-inclusive communication and practices; supporting carer needs; and managing carer dominance, anger, and conflicting patient-carer wishes. The usability of the module was rated by 5 clinicians, with a mean SUS score of 75 (SD 5.3), which is interpreted as good. Clinicians often desired information in a concise format, divided into small "snackable" sections that could be easily recommenced if they were interrupted. The carer module features 11 sections; requires approximately 1.5 hours to complete; and includes topics such as the importance of carers, carer roles during consultations, and advocating for the patient. The patient module is an adaptation of the relevant carer module sections, comprising 7 sections and requiring 1 hour to complete. The average SUS score as rated by 6 patients and carers was 78 (SD 16.2), which is interpreted as good. Interactive activities, clinical vignette videos, and reflective learning exercises are incorporated into all modules. Patient and carer consumer advisers advocated for empathetic content and tone throughout their modules, with an easy-to-read and navigable module interface. CONCLUSIONS: The eTRIO suite of modules were rigorously developed using a person-based design methodology to meet the unique information needs and learning requirements of clinicians, patients, and carers, with the goal of improving effective and supportive carer involvement in cancer consultations and cancer care.

An online intervention to improve oncology health professional self-efficacy in communicating with carers: Hybrid effectiveness-implementation evaluation of the eTRIO program.

OBJECTIVES: Many oncology health professionals (HPs) report communicating with carers as complex; and receive limited carer-relevant training. We developed an online HP education program for supporting and managing carer involvement (eTRIO). We aimed to assess whether HPs' self-efficacy in carer communication, knowledge, and decision-making preferences improve following eTRIO. Satisfaction and implementation potential were assessed. METHODS: This type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study used a pre-post single arm intervention design. HPs completed baseline measures, the eTRIO online module, and measures at 1- and 12-weeks post-intervention. Measures included: self-efficacy in carer communication (13-items), applied knowledge (7-items), preference for carer involvement in decisions (1-item). Fifteen of participants completed feedback interviews which underwent thematic analysis. User analytics were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-six HPs completed baseline measures, 42 completed post- and follow-up measures. At baseline mean self-efficacy score was 88. HPs showed a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy post-intervention (mean = 105.8, CI [12.99, 20.47]), maintained at 12-weeks (mean = 101.1, CI [8.00, 15.72]). There were no changes in knowledge or decision-making preferences. Program engagement and satisfaction were high, 86.7% participants rated eTRIO as very/extremely helpful. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: eTRIO provided HPs with confidence to effectively engage with carers and manage complex situations such as family dominance. These gains are noteworthy, as conflict with families/carers contributes to HP burnout.

The paradox of platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome.

Platypnoea-orthodeoxia is a rare clinical syndrome characterised by dyspnoea and oxygen desaturation in the upright position which improves when supine. It requires two components: a sufficiently sized anatomical vascular defect (typically intra-cardiac or intra-pulmonary) combined with a functional component that promotes positional right-to-left shunting. We describe the rare occurrence of a patient with platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) because of a paradoxical shunt through a patent foramen ovale caused by a large right atrial line-associated thrombus in a male with metastatic oesophageal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. This case is a timely reminder to consider POS amongst differentials for hypoxia as it is often treatable if recognised.

Cancer in general practice research priorities in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) is funded by Cancer Australia to support the development of new cancer in primary care research. We undertook a research prioritisation exercise to identify cancer research priorities in Australian general practice. METHOD: We adapted the nominal group technique, including a literature search and stakeholder survey. An expert group from the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group consolidated and ranked priorities. A second stakeholder survey reviewing the top 50 priorities informed a final prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: Overall, 311 priorities were identified across the cancer continuum. Nearly one-third of priorities were related to cancer survivorship and included strategies to detect recurrence, behavioural interventions and tools to assess physical and psychosocial aspects of survivorship. Prevention/early detection comprised 43.4% of priorities. Palliative care produced the least priorities (9.6%). Cross cutting research priorities (15.1%) included quality and models of care. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to identify cancer research priorities for general practice in Australia. It could be used to inform the development of targeted research and funding to improve the care and outcomes for Australians affected by cancer.

Evaluating the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Psychosexual Intervention for Couples Post-allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

PURPOSE: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) can have a long-term impact on patients' sexual functioning and consequently, their relationship satisfaction. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a 5-session psychosexual intervention for HSCT survivors and their partners. METHODS: To be eligible patients were required to be more than 3 months post-allogeneic HSCT. The intervention comprised 2 components: (1) A psychosexual education session exploring medical/behavioral treatment options for sexual dysfunction, delivered by a specialist nurse; (2) A 4-session Emotionally-Focused Therapy-based relationship education program for couples delivered by a clinical psychologist. Measures assessing relationship quality, sexual functioning, anxiety, and depression were administered pre- and post-intervention. Feasibility was measured via participation rate, adherence and compliance with completing main measures. Acceptability of the intervention was assessed via patient/partner satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: Eight of 85 (9.4%) eligible patients and their partners participated in the study. Reasons for declining participation included: feeling uncomfortable due to sensitive nature of intervention; did not have any relationship/sexual function issues; and experiencing ongoing medical issues. Six of 8 couples (75%) attended at least 4 intervention sessions and 5 of 8 (62.5%) completed the main study measures post-intervention. Four couples reported that sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction was somewhat or much better post-intervention; 1 reported no change. CONCLUSION: Feasibility criteria were not met, with low enrolment rate, however the intervention was deemed acceptable. Couples who participated adhered to the intervention and considered it beneficial. Further strategies to identify and manage sexual concerns are required.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. RESULTS: Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.

The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS: An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS: From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION: PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

iCare - a self-directed, interactive online program to improve health and wellbeing for people living with upper gastrointestinal or hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and their informal carers: the study protocol for a Phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of people diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract or hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers experience substantial reductions in quality of life (QoL), including high distress levels, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, weight loss and difficulty swallowing. With few advocacy groups and support systems for adults with upper GI or HPB cancers (i.e. pancreas, liver, stomach, bile duct and oesophageal) and their carers, online supportive care programs may represent an alternate cost-effective mechanism to support this patient group and carers. iCare is a self-directed, interactive, online program that provides information, resources, and psychological packages to patients and their carers from the treatment phase of their condition. The inception and development of iCare has been driven by consumers, advocacy groups, government and health professionals. The aims of this study are to determine the feasibility and acceptability of iCare, examine preliminary efficacy on health-related QoL and carer burden at 3- and 6-months post enrolment, and the potential cost-effectiveness of iCare, from health and societal perspectives, for both patients and carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Phase II randomised controlled trial. Overall, 162 people with newly diagnosed upper GI or HPB cancers and 162 carers will be recruited via the Upper GI Cancer Registry, online advertisements, or hospital clinics. Patients and carers will be randomly allocated (1:1) to the iCare program or usual care. Participant assessments will be at enrolment, 3- and 6-months later. The primary outcomes are i) feasibility, measured by eligibility, recruitment, response and attrition rates, and ii) acceptability, measured by engagement with iCare (frequency of logins, time spent using iCare, and use of features over the intervention period). Secondary outcomes are patient changes in QoL and unmet needs, and carer burden, unmet needs and QoL. Linear mixed models will be fitted to obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy and variability for secondary outcomes. The economic analysis will include a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. DISCUSSION: iCare provides a potential model of supportive care to improve QoL, unmet needs and burden of disease among people living with upper GI or HPB cancers and their carers. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12623001185651. This protocol reflects Version #1 26 April 2023.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experiences and views of shared and telehealth models of survivorship care: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital-based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth-delivered care. METHOD: Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow-up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth-based follow-up when there was no need for a clinical examination. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth-based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Psychosocial care for cancer survivors: A global review of national cancer control plans.

OBJECTIVE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) are high-level policy documents that prioritise actions to be taken to improve cancer control activities. As the number of cancer survivors grows globally, there is an urgent need to assess whether and how psychosocial care across the cancer care continuum is included in NCCPs. This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which NCCPs referenced psycho-oncology care for cancer survivors in the post-treatment phase. METHODS: NCCPs were obtained from the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) portal (in November 2021) and reviewed in two phases. In Phase 1, all available NCCPs were screened to determine whether they mentioned psycho-oncology or survivorship. In Phase 2, reviewers extracted data from the NCCPs identified in Phase 1 on the degree that each plan articulated objectives/goals to improve psychosocial care in the post-treatment survivorship phase. RESULTS: We screened 237 NCCPs. Of these, initial potential reference to psycho-oncology and survivorship content were identified in 97 plans (41%). In Phase 1, 57/97 (59%) had reference to psycho-oncology or survivorship content within defined criteria. In Phase 2, 27/97 (28%) had little mention of psycho-oncology specifically in survivorship, 47/97 (48%) had some (general or brief) mention, and the remaining 23/97 (24%) had substantial content/specific sections and clearly articulated goals and/or objectives. Common goals for improving psychosocial care in the post-treatment period included building capacity of healthcare professionals, implementing rehabilitation models, and increasing the utilisation of community services. CONCLUSIONS: Most NCCPs did not reference psycho-oncology and only one-quarter contained clear objectives specifically in the post-treatment survivorship phase.

Feasibility and efficacy of 'Can-Sleep': effects of a stepped-care approach to cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of the Can-Sleep stepped-care intervention for people with cancer-related sleep disturbance. METHODS: A total of 147 individuals with cancer were screened. Participants who reported sleep disturbances and were at low-moderate risk for intrinsic sleep abnormalities were given self-managed cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (SMCBT-I). Those reporting sleep disturbance and scoring at high risk of intrinsic sleep abnormalities (i.e., restless leg syndrome and obstructive sleep apnoea) were referred to a specialist sleep clinic. In both groups, participants received a stepped-up group CBT-I intervention (GCBT-I) if they continued to report sleep disturbance following SMCBT-I or the specialist sleep clinic. RESULTS: Overall, 87 participants reported sleep disturbance or screened at risk for intrinsic sleep abnormality. Thirty-four were referred to a specialist sleep clinic, and of the 17 who declined this referral, 14 were rereferred to SMCBT-I. In total, 62 participants were referred to SMCBT-I, and 56 commenced SMCBT-I. At post-intervention, the SMCBT-I group showed a significant decline in insomnia symptoms (p < .001, d = 1.01). Five participants who reported sleep disturbance after SMCBT-I and/or the specialist sleep clinic, accepted GCBT-I. Those who received the GCBT-I showed a significant reduction in insomnia symptoms (p < .01, d = 3.13). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility and efficacy of a stepped-care intervention for sleep disturbances in people with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A stepped-care intervention for sleep disturbance is a feasible and potentially effective method of addressing a significant and unmet patient need.

A systematic review of smartphone applications for cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Mobile phone applications are positioned to support, educate, and empower cancer survivors during post-treatment care. We undertook a review to assess the utility of such smartphone applications; determine whether their use correlates with improved quality of life and other self-reported outcomes; and understand the feasibility of integrating mobile apps into routine follow-up care. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies evaluating apps that addressed at least one of the five Cancer Survivorship Care Quality Framework (CSCQF) domains published up until December 2021. Studies were narratively synthesized. Implementation barriers and facilitators were mapped against the Technology Acceptance Model. RESULTS: Twenty-three primary studies were included in this review. Only three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies generally found mobile apps to be feasible, acceptable, and well-placed to support survivorship care. Health promotion was the most predominant CSCQF domain with apps primarily aiming to support exercise and dietary changes. The domains of monitoring for cancer recurrence (n=5) and management of co-morbidities (n=1) were underrepresented. Barriers to app use included greater time since active treatment, lack of familiarity with technology, and content not tailored to the user. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile apps are both feasible and acceptable in supporting the transition between active treatment and follow-up care. However, understanding the utility of such apps is limited by the low number of RCTs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Mobile apps have the potential to be useful support tools for patients post-treatment. However, given the number of apps developed, targeted, and available to cancer survivors, practical guidance to help cancer survivors choose appropriate apps is needed.

Evaluation of Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapies or targeted therapies: protocol for a single-arm, mixed-methods pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: People with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapies (IT) or targeted therapies (TT) may have improved outcomes in a subset of people who respond, raising unique psychological concerns requiring specific attention. These include the need for people with prolonged survival to reframe their life plans and tolerate uncertainty related to treatment duration and prognosis. A brief intervention for people with advanced cancer, Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), could help people treated with IT or TT address these concerns. However, CALM has not been specifically evaluated in this population. This study aims to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of CALM in people with advanced NSCLC treated with IT or TT and obtain preliminary evidence regarding its effectiveness in this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twenty people with advanced NSCLC treated with IT or TT will be recruited from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Participants will complete three to six sessions of CALM delivered over 3-6 months. A prospective, single-arm, mixed-methods pilot study will be conducted. Participants will complete outcome measures at baseline, post-intervention, 3 months and 6 months, including Patient Health Questionnaire, Death and Dying Distress Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General and Clinician Evaluation Questionnaire. The acceptability of CALM will be assessed using patient experiences surveys and qualitative interviews. Feasibility will be assessed by analysis of recruitment rates, treatment adherence and intervention delivery time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/82047/PMCC). Participants with cancer will complete a signed consent form prior to participation, and carers and therapists will complete verbal consent. Results will be made available to funders, broader clinicians and researchers through conference presentations and publications. If CALM is found to be acceptable in this cohort, this will inform a potential phase 3 trial.

Factors beyond diagnosis and treatment that are associated with return to work in Australian cancer survivors-A systematic review.

Return to work (RTW) is a marker of functional recovery for working-age cancer survivors. Identifying factors that impact on RTW in cancer survivors is an essential step to guide further research and interventions to support RTW. This systematic review aimed to identify nontreatment, non-cancer-related variables impacting RTW in Australian cancer survivors. A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies were eligible if they included: (1) adults living post diagnosis of malignancy; (2) quantitative data for nontreatment, non-cancer-related variables impacting RTW; (3) only Australian participants. Included studies were critically appraised, and relevant data extracted and synthesized narratively. Six studies were included in the review, published between 2008 and 2020. Studies were of variable quality and mixed methodologies. One study included malignancies of any type with the remainder focusing on survivors of colorectal cancer (n = 3), oropharyngeal cancer (n = 1), and glioblastoma multiforme (n = 1). Multiple factors were related to RTW in individual studies, including older age, presence of three or more comorbidities, fewer work hours pre-morbidly, lower body mass index, longer than recommended sleep duration, and not having private health insurance; however, there was limited consistency in findings between studies. Other variables examined included: occupation type, household income, healthy lifestyle behaviors, flexibility, and duration of employment with workplace; however, no significant associations with RTW were reported. Further research is required to gather compelling evidence on factors that influence RTW in Australian cancer survivors.

Do Australian state and territory cancer plans include survivorship-related objectives and propose quality survivorship outcomes and measures?

Objective This study reviewed Australian jurisdictional cancer plans to: (i) assess alignment of survivorship-related objectives with recommendations from the 2006 US Institute of Medicine (IOM) survivorship report, and (ii) identify objectives in assessing survivorship outcomes. Methods Current government cancer plans were identified and reviewed for inclusion of survivorship-related objectives, which were coded based on alignment with the 10 IOM recommendations, as well as content relating to outcome assessment and measurement. Results Twelve policy documents were identified from seven Australian states and territories. There was variability in the number of IOM recommendations addressed (between 3 and 8 of 10), the number of survivorship-related objectives (between 4 and 37 per jurisdiction) and the number of survivorship-related outcomes (between 1 and 25 per jurisdiction). Recommendations for raising awareness of survivorship, quality measures and models of survivorship care were more consistently addressed in jurisdictional plans. Recently updated plans appeared to have more survivorship-focused objectives. The importance of measuring survivorship outcomes was highlighted in all 12 cancer plans. Quality of life, other patient reported outcomes, and 5-year survival rates were the most commonly suggested outcomes. There was no consensus on metrics to assess survivorship outcomes, and little detail regarding how to measure proposed outcomes. Conclusion Almost all jurisdictions included survivorship-focused objectives within cancer plans. There was considerable variation in (i) alignment with IOM recommendations, and (ii) focus on survivorship-related objectives, outcomes and outcome measures. Opportunity exists for collaboration and harmonisation of work to develop national guidelines and standards of quality survivorship care.