Movement-evoked Pain versus Pain at Rest in Postsurgical Clinical Trials and in Meta-analyses: An Updated Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Given the widespread recognition that postsurgical movement-evoked pain is generally more intense, and more functionally relevant, than pain at rest, the authors conducted an update to a previous 2011 review to re-evaluate the assessment of pain at rest and movement-evoked pain in more recent postsurgical analgesic clinical trials. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE and Embase for postsurgical pain randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published between 2014 and 2023 in the setting of thoracotomy, knee arthroplasty, and hysterectomy using methods consistent with the original 2011 review. Included trials and meta-analyses were characterized according to whether they acknowledged the distinction between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain and whether they included pain at rest and/or movement-evoked pain as a pain outcome. For trials measuring movement-evoked pain, pain-evoking maneuvers used to assess movement-evoked pain were tabulated. RESULTS: Among the 944 included trials, 504 (53%) did not measure movement-evoked pain (vs. 61% in 2011), and 428 (45%) did not distinguish between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain when defining the pain outcome (vs. 52% in 2011). Among the 439 trials that measured movement-evoked pain, selection of pain-evoking maneuver was highly variable and, notably, was not even described in 139 (32%) trials (vs. 38% in 2011). Among the 186 included meta-analyses, 94 (51%) did not distinguish between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain (vs. 71% in 2011). CONCLUSIONS: This updated review demonstrates a persistent limited proportion of trials including movement-evoked pain as a pain outcome, a substantial proportion of trials failing to distinguish between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain, and a lack of consistency in the use of pain-evoking maneuvers for movement-evoked pain assessment. Future postsurgical trials need to (1) use common terminology surrounding pain at rest and movement-evoked pain, (2) assess movement-evoked pain in virtually every trial if not contraindicated, and (3) standardize movement-evoked pain assessment with common, procedure-specific pain-evoking maneuvers. More widespread knowledge translation and mobilization are required in order to disseminate this message to current and future investigators.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Evaluation of an educational program for nurses providing cancer symptom management: The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support Online Tutorial.

Purpose: To evaluate the acceptability of the pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) open-access online tutorial and its impact on nurses' knowledge and perceived confidence in symptom management. Methods: Retrospective pre-/post-test evaluation of nurses who completed the tutorial knowledge test and/or acceptability survey. The tutorial was modeled after the previously evaluated in-person workshop to prepare nurses providing cancer symptom management using COSTaRS practice guides. Results: From 2017-2021, 743 nurses completed the knowledge test, and 749 nurses evaluated the tutorial. Mean knowledge score was 4.4/6 and 83% of participants achieved passing scores. Compared to pre-tutorial, nurses improved their perceived confidence in assessing, triaging, guiding patients in self-care (p<0.001), and ability to use the COSTaRS guides (p<0.001). Nurses rated the tutorial as easy to understand (95%), just the right amount of information (92%), providing new information (75%), overall good to excellent (89%), and would recommend it to others (83%). Conclusions: More than 700 nurses accessed the tutorial. After completion, nurses demonstrated good knowledge and improved perceived confidence in cancer symptom management.

Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Chronic Pain after Surgery in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain can severely impair patient health and quality of life. This systematic review update evaluated the effectiveness of systemic drugs to prevent chronic postsurgical pain. METHODS: The authors included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials including adults that evaluated perioperative systemic drugs. Studies that evaluated same drug(s) administered similarly were pooled. The primary outcome was the proportion reporting any pain at 3 or more months postsurgery. RESULTS: The authors identified 70 new studies and 40 from 2013. Most evaluated ketamine, pregabalin, gabapentin, IV lidocaine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids. Some meta-analyses showed statistically significant-but of unclear clinical relevance-reductions in chronic postsurgical pain prevalence after treatment with pregabalin, IV lidocaine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meta-analyses with more than three studies and more than 500 participants showed no effect of ketamine on prevalence of any pain at 6 months when administered for 24 h or less (risk ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.07]; prevalence, 0 to 88% ketamine; 0 to 94% placebo) or more than 24 h (risk ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.12]; 6 to 71% ketamine; 5 to 78% placebo), no effect of pregabalin on prevalence of any pain at 3 months (risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10]; 4 to 88% pregabalin; 3 to 80% placebo) or 6 months (risk ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.28]; 6 to 68% pregabalin; 4 to 69% placebo) when administered more than 24 h, and an effect of pregabalin on prevalence of moderate/severe pain at 3 months when administered more than 24 h (risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.68]; 0 to 20% pregabalin; 4 to 34% placebo). However, the results should be interpreted with caution given small study sizes, variable surgical types, dosages, timing and method of outcome measurements in relation to the acute pain trajectory in question, and preoperative pain status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite agreement that chronic postsurgical pain is an important topic, extremely little progress has been made since 2013, likely due to study designs being insufficient to address the complexities of this multifactorial problem.

Quality of telephone-based cancer symptom management by nurses: a quality improvement project.

PURPOSE: To determine the quality of cancer symptom management when evidence from clinical practice guidelines are used in telephone-based oncology nursing services. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, we conducted a quality improvement (QI) project focused on "monitoring knowledge use" (e.g., use of practice guides) and "measuring outcomes." In 2016, 15 Pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) practice guides that synthesize evidence from guidelines were implemented with training for all oncology nurses at a regional ambulatory oncology program. Eighteen months post-implementation, Symptom Management Analysis Tool (SMAT) was used to analyze audio-recorded calls and related documentation of cancer symptom management. RESULTS: Of 113 audio-recorded calls, 66 were COSTaRS symptoms (58%), 43 other symptoms (38%), and 4 medically complex situations (4%). Of 66 recorded calls, 63 (95%) were documented. Average SMAT quality score was 71% (range 21-100%) for audio-recordings and 63% (range 19-100%) for documentation of calls. COSTaRS practice guide use was documented in 33% calls. For these calls, average SMAT quality scores were 74% with COSTaRS versus 69% without COSTaRS for audio-recording and 73% (range 33-100%) with COSTaRS versus 58% without COSTaRS for documentation. Patient outcomes indicated symptom was resolved (38%), worse (25%), unchanged (3%), or unknown (33%). Eight patients (13%) had an ED visit within 14 days post that was related to the symptom discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of nurses indicated use of COSTaRS practice guides. There were higher quality symptom management scores when COSTaRS use was reported. Nurses documented less than what they discussed.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) practice guides - What's changed in Version 2020?

The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) practice guides present evidence on symptom management in user-friendly formats and using plain language. The aim of this work is to summarize changes to the practice guides based on new evidence including management specific to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. For version 2020, there is new evidence from 86 sources (range 2-16; mean 9 per guide), including 14 specific to ICIs, and we removed 21 outdated sources. The 15 COSTaRS practice guides were updated and 2 new guides created for mouth dryness and skin rash. The National Cancer Institute's common terminology criteria for adverse events (NCI-CTCAE) grading was added to the assessment results. "Review self-care strategies" was changed to "Review 3 or more self-care strategies". There were changes based on new evidence and ensuring consistency across practice guides. The 2020 update was validated by oncology nurses from across Canada.

Quality of telephone nursing services for adults with cancer and related non-emergent visits to the emergency department.

A quality improvement project was conducted to determine the quality of telephone nursing for patients with cancer symptoms. Eligible patients were ones who telephoned the nurse about cancer symptom(s) within four weeks prior to an emergency department (ED) visit not requiring hospital admission. Experienced oncology nurses extracting data indicated appropriateness of ED visits and opportunities for improvement. The Symptom Management Analysis Tool was used to analyze nurse documentation. For 77 patients, 87% ED visits occurred within four days of calls about symptoms (e.g., pain, breathlessness, constipation, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting) and 91% could have been managed by more complete telephone assessment and/or an urgent clinic visit. Quality of nurse documentation revealed few patients were assessed adequately (38%), received any symptom-specific medication review (49%), or were guided in self-care strategies (17%). There was low-quality telephone symptom management by nurses and a need for alternative options for patients requiring urgent face-to-face assessments. Our findings highlight a gap in use of guidelines for informing telephone symptom management.

Patient and family experiences with accessing telephone cancer treatment symptom support: a descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Assess patient and family member experiences with telephone cancer treatment symptom support. METHODS: Descriptive study guided by the Knowledge-to-Action Framework. Patients and family members who received telephone support for a cancer treatment symptom within the last month at one of three ambulatory cancer programs (Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec) were eligible. An adapted Short Questionnaire for Out-of-hours Care instrument was analyzed with univariate statistics. RESULTS: Of 105 participants, 83 % telephoned about themselves and 17 % for a family member. Participants received advice over the telephone (90 %) and were advised to go to emergency (13 %) and/or the clinic (9 %). Two left a message and were not called back. Participants were "very satisfied" with the manner of nurse or doctor (58 %), explanation about problem (56 %), treatment/advice given (54 %), way call was handled (48 %), getting through (40 %), and wait time to speak to a nurse or doctor (38 %). The proportion "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" for the above items was 4, 5, 9, 11, 10, and 14 %, respectively. Suggestions were shorter call back time, weekend access to telephone support, more knowledgeable advice on self-care strategies, more education at discharge, and shared documentation on calls to avoid repetition and improve continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and family members who responded to the survey were satisfied with telephone-based cancer treatment symptom support. Programs could improve telephone support services by providing an estimated time for callback, ensuring that nurses have access to and use previous call documentation, and enhancing patient education on self-care strategies for managing and triaging treatment-related symptoms.

Health-related quality of life at healing in individuals with chronic venous or mixed-venous leg ulceration: a longitudinal assessment.

AIMS: To identify factors associated with longitudinal changes in health-related quality of life in community-dwelling individuals with venous or mixed-venous leg ulcers. BACKGROUND: Most care focuses primarily on healing; this research may additionally lead to strategies to improve quality of life. DESIGN: Data from four studies (2000-2009) were combined (2012) to examine quality of life in community-dwelling individuals referred for care of chronic leg wounds. METHODS: Data collection occurred at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months or at healing and included a comprehensive clinical assessment and measures of pain (McGill), functional autonomy (EQ-5D™ ) and quality of life (SF-12TM ). Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores (SF-12TM ) were categorized by whether or not there was an improvement (≥3 points) over time. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to identify factors associated with improvement. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Mean age of this sample (n = 519) was 67·5 years, 55·9% were women. Median time to healing was 70 days. Mean Physical Component Summary score increased from 37·0-41·5; factors associated with improvement included independent mobility, family history, problems with usual activities, fewer comorbidities and higher baseline pain. Mean Mental Component Summary score improved from 50·5-53·7; factors associated with improvement included anxiety or depression at baseline and living with others. CONCLUSION: Chronic leg ulceration has a substantial, negative impact on health-related quality of life. Ascertaining characteristics associated with changes in quality of life will contribute to the development of comprehensive strategies for prevention, care and improved quality of life.

Implementation of Symptom Protocols for Nurses Providing Telephone-Based Cancer Symptom Management: A Comparative Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) team developed 13 evidence-informed protocols for symptom management. AIM: To build an effective and sustainable approach for implementing the COSTaRS protocols for nurses providing telephone-based symptom support to cancer patients. METHODS: A comparative case study was guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework. Three cases were created for three Canadian oncology programs that have nurses providing telephone support. Teams of researchers and knowledge users: (a) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing protocol use, (b) adapted protocols for local use, (c) intervened to address barriers, (d) monitored use, and (e) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing sustained use. Analysis was within and across cases. RESULTS: At baseline, >85% nurses rated protocols positively but barriers were identified (64-80% needed training). Patients and families identified similar barriers and thought protocols would enhance consistency among nurses teaching self-management. Twenty-two COSTaRS workshops reached 85% to 97% of targeted nurses (N = 119). Nurses felt more confident with symptom management and using the COSTaRS protocols (p < .01). Protocol adaptations addressed barriers (e.g., health records approval, creating pocket versions, distributing with telephone messages). Chart audits revealed that protocols used were documented for 11% to 47% of patient calls. Sustained use requires organizational alignment and ongoing leadership support. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Protocol uptake was similar to trials that have evaluated tailored interventions to improve professional practice by overcoming identified barriers. Collaborating with knowledge users facilitated interpretation of findings, aided protocol adaptation, and supported implementation. Protocol implementation in nursing requires a tailored approach. A multifaceted intervention approach increased nurses' use of evidence-informed protocols during telephone calls with patients about symptoms. Training and other interventions improved nurses' confidence with using COSTaRS protocols and their uptake was evident in some documented telephone calls. Protocols could be adapted for use by patients and nurses globally.

Factors associated with health-related quality of life in chronic leg ulceration.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic leg ulceration may have significantly impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL) due to pain, impaired mobility, poor sleep, depression, restricted work capacity, and social isolation. The study purpose was to examine the associations among sociodemographic and clinical factors and HRQOL in a large sample of community-dwelling adults being treated for leg ulcers. METHODS: Data are from the cross-sectional baseline assessment of the Canadian Bandaging Trial, a multi-center, randomized controlled trial conducted to assess time to healing with two forms of high-compression bandaging. All participants received a comprehensive, standardized clinical assessment, and completed the 12-item Short Form (SF-12) and McGill Pain Questionnaire. SF-12 data were compared to age- and sex-adjusted norms, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with whether individuals were below, or at/above their normative values on the physical and mental component summary (PCS, MCS). RESULTS: Of 424 individuals enrolled over a 50-month period, 407 (96 %) completed the SF-12. Mean age was 65 ± 17 years, and 55 % were women. Mean PCS was 39.1 ± 9.9 with 91 (22.4 %) scoring at/above the mean value for their age and sex; equivalent values for the MCS were 51.4 ± 9.9 and 209 (51.4 %). Higher levels of pain, younger age, larger size and longer duration of ulcer, and limited mobility were associated with poorer HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirm the considerable burden of illness associated with leg ulcers. Given the chronic and recurring nature of the condition, strategies focused on improving HRQOL and healing are needed for this vulnerable population.

Remote symptom support training programs for oncology nurses in Canada: an environmental scan.

The overall aim of this study was to explore current remote symptom support training programs provided to nurses in ambulatory oncology programs across Canada, using a survey-methods environmental scan. Of 36 delivered invitations, 28 programs responded (77.8%) representing 10 provinces. Of 25 programs that offer telephone symptom support, 17 provide symptom support training, seven do not, and one did not say. Seven programs shared training materials with the investigators and elements of training included: symptom management guidelines (n = 6), telephone triage process/principles (n = 5), competent telephone practices (n = 4), documentation (n = 4), professional standards (n = 3), role-play (n = 3), communication skills/etiquette (n = 3), and monitoring quality (n = 1). Formats included: presentations (n = 3), paper-based resources (n = 3), or e-learning modules (n = 1). No training programs were rigorously evaluated. Training in telephone nursing symptom support across oncology programs is variable. Opportunities exist to identify core competencies and evaluate if training programs enhance delivery of remote cancer symptom support.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. CONCLUSION: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.

When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.

Leg ulcer nursing care in the community: a prospective cohort study of the symptom of pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds are managed almost entirely by community nurses. Almost all individuals with leg ulcers report acute pain usually related to dressing change. Little is known about pain after healing. The purpose of this study was to explore the course of pain from baseline to time of healing of leg ulcers (venous or mixed etiology). In order to understand this phenomenon and develop implications for nursing practice, objectives included: 1) Measure incidence and prevalence of pain at baseline and healing; 2) Describe characteristics associated with leg ulcer pain at baseline; 3) Identify predictors of leg ulcer pain at healing. METHODS: Data were from one randomized controlled trial (2004-2008) of 424 individuals with leg ulcers in the community receiving evidence-informed nursing management. The primary outcome was pain at the time of healing. Predictive factors included demographic, circumstance of living, clinical and ulcer characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression identified the subset of predictors of pain at healing. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of participants reported pain at baseline and 32% at healing. Five percent with no pain at baseline reported pain at healing. Thirty-seven percent reported moderate to severe pain at baseline and 11% at healing. Twenty percent of all those who healed reported pain interfered with work moderately to extremely at time of healing. Being female (OR=1.64, 95% CI 1.00, 2.68, p=0.05), use of short-stretch vs. four-layer bandages (OR=1.73, 95% CI 1.06, 2.82, p=0.03), lower SF-12 PCS (OR=0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 0.99, p=0.02) and MCS (OR=0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p=0.04) scores, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.06, 4.88, p=0.03), and tender pain (OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.29, 3.66, p=<0.01) were associated with pain at time of healing. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is an issue on admission for chronic wounds and at healing, yet 58% with moderate to severe pain on admission were not taking pain medication(s). Future studies should examine the role of pain at healing and at subsequent ulcer recurrence. Mobility and other factors that may contribute to pain at time of healing should also be assessed. Community nurses are encouraged to consider pain when planning care on admission and also after wound healing, when most patients are discharged from care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00202267.

Quality of patient decision aids to support the public making COVID-19 decisions: An online environmental scan.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and appraise the quality of COVID-19 patient decision aids (PtDAs). METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. We calculated median International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) scores and proportion scoring > 70% on Patient Education Materials Information Tool (PEMAT) adequate for understandability and actionability. RESULTS: Of 876 resources identified, 12 were PtDAs. Decisions focused on initial COVID-19 vaccination series (n = 9), location of care for elderly (n = 2), and social distancing (n = 1). All 12 PtDAs were written materials and two had accompanying videos. The median IPDAS score minimizing risk of biased decisions was 4 of 6 items (IQR 1, range 2-4). For PEMAT, 92% had adequate for understandability and none for actionability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified few online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs and none were about COVID-19 vaccination boosters or treatment. PtDAs scored poorly on actionability and none met all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of biased decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PtDA developers for COVID-19 and future pandemics should ensure their PtDAs meet all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of bias, have adequate scores for actionability, and are disseminated in the A to Z inventory.