Nursing - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableWomen with gynaecological cancer awaiting radiotherapy: Self-reported wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function, and supportive care needs(ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2022-10)OBJECTIVE: To better serve women with gynaecological cancers, we need a sound understanding of their health, wellbeing and needs. This study sought to explore these issues in a sample of Australian women before commencing curative radiotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a supportive care trial (n = 311). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise responses to measures of wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function and vaginal changes, and supportive care needs. Pre-specified regression models were used to examine sources of variation in wellbeing and sexual function. RESULTS: Women reported lower emotional, functional and physical wellbeing than population norms (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of general psychological distress was 31% (95% CI 26-36%). Distress caused by physical symptoms was typically low. Health system and information needs comprised eight of the top ten moderate-to-high supportive care needs. Most women reported no change in interest for physical contact or sex compared to pre-diagnosis, but some sexually active women (16-24%) reported smaller vaginal size, increased dryness, and more pain on intercourse. General psychological distress was a robust marker of poorer wellbeing and sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Before radiotherapy, a substantial minority of women with gynaecological cancers experience general psychological distress, reduced wellbeing and moderate-to-high health system and information needs. A model of comprehensive care incorporating assessment of unmet needs, general psychological distress, and sexual issues is recommended. Healthcare providers may require training to elicit and respond to a constellation of interrelated issues and access relevant services for women requiring additional support.
-
ItemCancer incidence and mortality in Australia from 2020 to 2044 and an exploratory analysis of the potential effect of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statistical modelling study(ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2022-06)BACKGROUND: Long-term projections of cancer incidence and mortality estimate the future burden of cancer in a population, and can be of great use in informing the planning of health services and the management of resources. We aimed to estimate incidence and mortality rates and numbers of new cases and deaths up until 2044 for all cancers combined and for 21 individual cancer types in Australia. We also illustrate the potential effect of treatment delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic on future colorectal cancer mortality rates. METHODS: In this statistical modelling study, cancer incidence and mortality rates in Australia from 2020 to 2044 were projected based on data up to 2017 and 2019, respectively. Cigarette smoking exposure (1945-2019), participation rates in the breast cancer screening programme (1996-2019), and prostate-specific antigen testing rates (1994-2020) were included where relevant. The baseline projection model using an age-period-cohort model or generalised linear model for each cancer type was selected based on model fit statistics and validation with pre-COVID-19 observed data. To assess the impact of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer mortality, we obtained data on incidence, survival, prevalence, and cancer treatment for colorectal cancer from different authorities. The relative risks of death due to system-caused treatment delays were derived from a published systematic review. Numbers of excess colorectal cancer deaths were estimated using the relative risk of death per week of treatment delay and different durations of delay under a number of hypothetical scenarios. FINDINGS: Projections indicate that in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic effects, the age-standardised incidence rate for all cancers combined for males would decline over 2020-44, and for females the incidence rate would be relatively stable in Australia. The mortality rates for all cancers combined for both males and females are expected to continuously decline during 2020-44. The total number of new cases are projected to increase by 47·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 35·2-61·3) for males, from 380 306 in 2015-19 to 560 744 (95% UI 514 244-613 356) in 2040-44, and by 54·4% (95% UI 40·2-70·5) for females, from 313 263 in 2015-19 to 483 527 (95% UI 439 069-534 090) in 2040-44. The number of cancer deaths are projected to increase by 36·4% (95% UI 15·3-63·9) for males, from 132 440 in 2015-19 to 180 663 (95% UI 152 719-217 126) in 2040-44, and by 36·6% (95% UI 15·8-64·1) for females, from 102 103 in 2015-19 to 139 482 (95% UI 118 186-167 527) in 2040-44, due to population ageing and growth. The example COVID-19 pandemic scenario of a 6-month health-care system disruption with 16-week treatment delays for colorectal cancer patients could result in 460 (95% UI 338-595) additional deaths and 437 (95% UI 314-570) deaths occurring earlier than expected in 2020-44. INTERPRETATION: These projections can inform health service planning for cancer care and treatment in Australia. Despite the continuous decline in cancer mortality rates, and the decline or plateau in incidence rates, our projections suggest an overall 51% increase in the number of new cancer cases and a 36% increase in the number of cancer deaths over the 25-year projection period. This means that continued efforts to increase screening uptake and to control risk factors, including smoking exposure, obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and infections, must remain public health priorities. FUNDING: Partly funded by Cancer Council Australia.
-
ItemHow can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review(WILEY, 2022-05)Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.
-
ItemCities as an Enabler for Strengthening Cancer Care(LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2021-06)
-
ItemDevelopment of the 'REadiness SElf-assessment (RESEA) guide' to assist low and middle-income countries with establishing safe and sustainable radiotherapy services: a pragmatic sequential mixed qualitative methods project(BMC, 2021-03-23)BACKGROUND: Improving access to radiotherapy services in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging. Many LMICs' radiotherapy initiatives fail because of multi-faceted barriers leading to significant wastage of scarce resources. Supporting LMICs to self-assess their readiness for establishing radiotherapy services will help to improve cancer outcomes by ensuring safe, effective and sustainable evidenced-based cancer care. The aim of the study was to develop practical guidance for LMICs on self-assessing their readiness to establish safe and sustainable radiotherapy services. METHODS: The Access to Radiotherapy for Cancer treatment (ARC) Project was a pragmatic sequential mixed qualitative methods design underpinned by the World Health Organisation's 'Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions Framework' and 'Health System Building Blocks Framework for Action' conceptual frameworks. This paper reports on the process of overall data integration and meta-inference from previously published components comprising a systematic review and two-part qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and a participant validation process). The meta-inferences enabled a series of radiotherapy readiness self-assessment requirements to be generated, formalised as a REadiness SElf-Assessment (RESEA) Guide' for use by LMICs. FINDINGS: The meta-inferences identified a large number of factors that acted as facilitators and/or barriers, depending on the situation, which include: awareness and advocacy; political leadership; epidemiological data; financial resources; basic physical infrastructure; radiation safety legislative and regulatory framework; project management; and radiotherapy workforce training and education. 'Commitment', 'cooperation', 'capacity' and 'catalyst' were identified as the key domains enabling development of radiotherapy services. Across these four domains, the RESEA Guide included 37 requirements and 120 readiness questions that LMICs need to consider and answer as part of establishing a new radiotherapy service. CONCLUSIONS: The RESEA Guide provides a new resource for LMICs to self-assess their capacity to establish safe and sustainable radiotherapy services. Future evaluation of the acceptability and feasibility of the RESEA Guide is needed to inform its validity. Further work, including field study, is needed to inform further refinements. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are required to reduce the data set and test the fit of the four-factor structure (commitment, cooperation, capacity and catalyst) found in the current study.
-
ItemAustralian Experiences of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Burden Following a Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review(MDPI, 2021-03)(1) Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify cancer patient experiences, and the impact of out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in Australia. (2) Methods: A systematic review, following the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted. Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed were searched. The primary outcome was financial burden among cancer patients and their families in Australia. The secondary outcome was out-of-pocket costs associated with cancer care and treatment within the population sample, and the impact of financial burden. (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included, covering more than 70,000 Australians affected by cancer. Out-of-pocket costs varied by cancer type and ranged from an average of AUD 977 for breast cancer and lymphoedema patients to AUD 11,077 for prostate cancer patients. Younger aged patients (≤65 years), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in rural and/or remote areas, households with low income, those who were unemployed and people with private health insurance were at increased risk of experiencing out-of-pocket costs, financial burden or a combination of both. (4) Conclusions: Australians diagnosed with cancer frequently experience financial burden, and the health and financial consequences are significant. Focusing efforts on the costs of care and options about where to have care within the context of informed decisions about cancer care is necessary.
-
ItemAssessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries(PAGEPRESS PUBL, 2020)Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups. Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the "real-world" environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established. Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention. Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.
-
ItemThe impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review(SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2020)Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.
-
Item
-
ItemDevelopment and testing of a guideline document to provide essential information for patient decision making regarding cancer clinical trials(WILEY, 2020-09)OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a guideline document to advise the content of a summarised patient information form (SPIF) regarding cancer clinical trials. METHODS: A two-phase study was undertaken to inform the development of the guideline document. In phase 1, 15 statements drawn from an international Delphi study and participant commentary were used to draft content for the guideline document. In phase 2, Delphi participants were invited to contribute to a five-step process via an online survey, to feedback on the guideline document, including the process for guideline formulation, testing application, revision, utility and clarity assessment, and completion. RESULTS: Over 73% of respondents to the online survey agreed that a sample SPIF generated by the draft guideline could support patient decision making. After the draft guideline revision, the researcher and four health professionals used the guideline to independently create a SPIF. The Flesch-Kincaid reading ease scores of the sample SPIFs were between 61.3 and 66.5, with reading levels between 7.8 and 8.8, indicating that the guideline document can assist health professionals with the generation of an understandable SPIF. The reference group members provided positive feedback on the guideline document, and an expert on plain language in healthcare information proofread the guideline document. CONCLUSION: The approach used in the study ensured the potential of the guideline document developed to enable generation of SPIFs that provide patients considering participation in a cancer clinical trial with essential and understandable information to support their decision making.