Nursing - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7
-
ItemRenewed cervical screening: what the early results tell us(WILEY, 2019-08)
-
ItemAssessing the cost-effectiveness of RT Prepare: A radiation therapist-delivered intervention for reducing psychological distress prior to radiotherapy(WILEY, 2019-05)OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of RT Prepare in reducing breast cancer patients' psychological distress before treatment, compared with usual care. METHODS: RT Prepare, an intervention involving patient education and support consultations with a radiation therapist (RT), was implemented at three Australian sites (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration: ACTRN12611001000998). The primary outcome was change in psychological distress using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); secondary outcomes were changes in quality of life (QoL) and additional health service use. Costs (2015 $AU) included consultation time and training delivery. Between-group comparisons of HADS and QoL used generalised linear mixed models, and comparisons of health service use used negative binomial regression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) indicated mean costs per 1-point decrease in HADS score. Sensitivity analyses explored variation in facility size and uncertainty in intervention effectiveness. RESULTS: Among 218 controls and 189 intervention participants, the intervention significantly lowered HADS scores at treatment commencement (adjusted mean difference 1.06 points). There was no significant effect on QoL or additional service use. Mean intervention costs were AU$171 per participant (US$130, €119) mostly related to RT training (approximately AU$142 (US$108, €99). An ICER of $158 (US$120, €110) was estimated. Cost-effectiveness improved in a sensitivity analysis representing a large facility with higher patient numbers. CONCLUSION: This study provides new data on the cost-effectiveness of an RT-delivered intervention to reduce psychological distress prior to treatment, which will be useful to inform delivery of similar services. As most costs were upfront, cost-effectiveness would likely improve if implemented as standard care.
-
ItemA systematic review of cancer caregiver interventions: Appraising the potential for implementation of evidence into practice(WILEY, 2019-04)OBJECTIVE: nformal caregivers provide substantial support for people living with cancer. Previous systematic reviews report on the efficacy of cancer caregiver interventions but not their potential to be implemented. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential for cancer caregiver interventions to be implemented into practice. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases to identify cancer caregiver interventions on 5 January 2018. We operationalised six implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and costs) into a tool to guide data extraction. RESULTS: The search yielded 33 papers (27 papers from electronic databases and six papers from other sources) reporting on 26 studies that met review criteria. Fewer than half the studies (46%) contained evidence about the acceptability of interventions from caregivers' perspectives; only two studies (8%) included interventions developed with input from caregivers. Two studies (8%) addressed potential adoption of interventions, and no studies discussed intentions, agreement, or action to implement interventions into practice. All studies reported on intervention appropriateness by providing a rationale for the interventions. For feasibility, on average less than one-third of caregivers who were eligible to be involved consented to participate. On fidelity, whether interventions were conducted as intended was reported in 62% of studies. Cost data were reported in terms of intervention delivery, requiring a median time commitment of staff of 180 minutes to be delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver intervention studies lack components of study design and reporting that could bridge the gap between research and practice. There is enormous potential for improvements in cancer caregiver intervention study design to plan for future implementation.
-
ItemIdentifying priorities for cancer caregiver interventions: protocol for a three-round modified Delphi study(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2019-06)INTRODUCTION: Cancer is often considered a chronic disease, and most people with cancer have a caregiver, often a family member or friend who provides a significant amount of care during the illness trajectory. Caregivers are frequently in need of support, and a range of interventions have been trialled to improve outcomes. Consensus for optimal ways to support caregivers is not known. The aim of this protocol paper is to describe procedures for a modified Delphi study to explore expert consensus about important factors when developing caregiver interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Online modified Delphi methodology will be used to establish consensus for important caregiver intervention factors incorporating the Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework. Round 1 will comprise a free-text questionnaire and invite the panel to contribute factors they deem important in the development and evaluation of caregiver interventions. Round 2 is designed to determine preliminary consensus of the importance of factors generated in round 1. The panel will be asked to rate each factor using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The option for panellists to state reasoning for their rating will be provided. Descriptive statistics (median scores and IQR) will be calculated to determine each item's relative importance. Levels of consensus will be assessed based on a predefined consensus rating matrix. In round 3, factors will be recirculated including aggregate group responses (statistics and comment summaries) and panellists' own round 2 scores. Panellists will be invited to reconsider their judgements and resubmit ratings using the same rating system as in round 2. This will result in priority lists based on the panel's total rating scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics for this study has been gained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group. It is anticipated that the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums.
-
ItemUnderstanding rural caregivers' experiences of cancer care when accessing metropolitan cancer services: a qualitative study(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2019-08)OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of cancer caregivers who live in rural Australia and travel to a metropolitan cancer health service to access cancer treatment. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semistructured, audio-recorded interviews conducted between December 2017 and July 2018 with caregivers and social workers. Thematic analysis using interpretative descriptive techniques performed on textual interview data within a critical realist paradigm to develop understanding of rural caregivers' lived experiences. SETTING: Participants were from rural areas attending a metropolitan cancer centre in Australia and social workers. PARTICIPANTS: 21 caregivers (16 female) of people with cancer living in rural Australia within a minimum distance of 100 km from the metropolitan cancer centre where they access treatment, and five social workers employed at a metropolitan cancer service with experience of working with rural patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Thematic analysis developed two overarching themes: theme 1: caregiving in the rural setting describes the unique circumstance in which caregiving for a person with cancer takes place in the rural setting at considerable distance from the cancer service where the person receives treatment. This is explored in three categories: 'Rural community and culture', 'Life adjustments' and 'Available supports'. Theme 2: accessing metropolitan cancer services captures the multiplicity of tasks and challenges involved in organising and coordinating the journey to access cancer treatment in a metropolitan hospital, which is presented in the following categories: 'Travel', 'Accommodation' and 'Health system navigation'. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers who live in rural areas face significant challenges when confronting geographic isolation between their rural home environment and the metropolitan setting, where the patient accessed cancer treatment. There is a need for healthcare services to identify this group to develop feasible and sustainable ways to provide interventions that have the best chance of assisting rural caregivers in supporting the patient while maintaining their own health and well-being.
-
ItemThe trials and tribulations of conducting an m-health pilot randomized controlled trial to improve oral cancer therapy adherence: recommendations for future multisite, non-drug clinical trials(BioMed Central, 2019-04-15)OBJECTIVE: Integrating mobile phone-based health (m-health) interventions into healthcare systems is one solution to improve access to services for the growing number of patients with chronic illness. Practical challenges such as poor recruitment and inadequate resource allocation can hamper the assessment of such interventions with clinical trial methodology. This paper highlights the challenges encountered during a pilot randomized controlled trial of an m-health medication adherence intervention and offers recommendations for future multi-site, non-drug clinical trials. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were recruited to the study; eight were randomly allocated to the intervention arm. Intervention participants responded to their daily medication-reminder text messages, indicating that medication had been taken or not, and nurses were able to organize their calls around their workload. The trial closed prematurely primarily due to inadequate numbers of eligible patients; however, other potentially resolvable feasibility issues were identified. These included lack of infrastructure at study sites, poor screening data acquisition and management processes, and inexperience in conducting supportive care trials at participating sites. M-health intervention trials are designed to inform implementation of best supportive care practice. Adequate skills and infrastructure are research prerequisites that require careful consideration and sufficient investment for the successful execution of multi-site supportive care trials. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register: ACTRN12612000635864.
-
ItemMultidisciplinary home-based rehabilitation in inoperable lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2019-08)BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and high symptom burden. This trial aimed to assess the efficacy of home-based rehabilitation versus usual care in inoperable lung cancer. METHODS: A parallel-group, assessor-blinded, allocation-concealed, randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were allocated (1:1) to usual care (UC) plus 8 weeks of aerobic and resistance exercise with behaviour change strategies and symptom support (intervention group (IG)) or UC alone. Assessments occurred at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months. The primary outcome, change in between-group 6 min walk distance (6MWD), was analysed using intention-to-treat (ITT). Subsequent analyses involved modified ITT (mITT) and included participants with at least one follow-up outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included HRQoL and symptoms. RESULTS: Ninety-two participants were recruited. Characteristics of participants (UC=47, IG=45): mean (SD) age 64 (12) years; men 55%; disease stage n (%) III=35 (38) and IV=48 (52); radical treatment 46%. There were no significant between-group differences for the 6MWD (n=92) at 9 weeks (p=0.308) or 6 months (p=0.979). The mITT analyses of 6MWD between-group differences were again non-significant (mean difference (95% CI): 9 weeks: -25.4 m (-64.0 to 13.3), p=0.198 and 6 months: 41.3 m (-26.7 to 109.4), p=0.232). Significant 6-month differences, favouring the IG, were found for HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung: 13.0 (3.9 to 22.1), p=0.005) and symptom severity (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer: -2.2 (-3.6 to -0.9), p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Home-based rehabilitation did not improve functional exercise capacity but there were improvements in patient-reported exploratory secondary outcomes measures observed at 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614001268639).