Search

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is the disease management option of choice for low-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) find management decisions distressing and confusing. We developed Navigate, an online decision aid to help men and their partners make management decisions consistent with their values. The aims are to evaluate the impact of Navigate on uptake of AS; decision-making preparedness; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life and anxiety. In addition, the healthcare cost impact, cost-effectiveness and patterns of use of Navigate will be assessed. This paper describes the study protocol.Methods: Three hundred four men and their partners are randomly assigned one-to-one to Navigate or to the control arm. Randomisation is electronically generated and stratified by site. Navigate is an online decision aid that presents up-to-date, unbiased information on LRPC tailored to Australian men and their partners including each management option and potential side-effects, and an interactive values clarification exercise. Participants in the control arm will be directed to the website of Australia's peak national body for prostate cancer. Eligible patients will be men within 3 months of being diagnosed with LRPC, aged 18 years or older, and who are yet to make a treatment decision, who are deemed eligible for AS by their treating clinician and who have Internet access and sufficient English to participate. The primary outcome is self-reported uptake of AS as the first-line management option. Secondary outcomes include self-reported preparedness for decision-making; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. Uptake of AS 1 month after consent will be determined through patient self-report. Men and their partners will complete study outcome measures before randomisation and 1, 3 and 6 months after study consent.Discussion: The Navigate online decision aid has the potential to increase the choice of AS in LRPC, avoiding or delaying unnecessary radical treatments and associated side effects. In addition, Navigate is likely to reduce patients' and partners' confusion and distress in management decision-making and increase their quality of life.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616001665426 . Registered on 2 December 2016. All items from the WHO Trial Registration Data set can be found in this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the online and social media presence of all practising Australian and New Zealand urologists. Subjects and Methods In July 2014, all active members of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand ( USANZ) were identified. A comprehensive search of Google and each social media platform (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube) was undertaken for each urologist to identify any private websites or social media profiles. Results Of the 435 urologists currently practising in Australia and New Zealand, 305 (70.1%) have an easily identifiable social media account. LinkedIn (51.3%) is the most commonly used form of social media followed by Twitter (33.3%) and private Facebook (30.1%) accounts. About half (49.8%) have a private business website. The average number of social media accounts per urologist is 1.42 and 16 urologists (3.7%) have an account with all searched social media platforms. Over half of those with a Twitter account (55.9%) follow a dedicated urology journal club and have a median (range) number of 'followers' of 12 (1-2 862). Social media users had a median (range) of 2 (0-8 717) 'tweets' on Twitter, 2 (1-45) LinkedIn posts and 1 (1-14) YouTube video. Conclusion This study represents a unique dataset not relying on selection or recall bias but using data freely available to patients and colleagues to gauge social media presence of urologists. Most Australian and New Zealand urologists have a readily identifiable online and social media presence, with widespread and consistent use across both countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing patient and surgeon interest in robotic-assisted surgery, particularly with the proliferation of da Vinci surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) throughout the world. There is much debate over the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of these systems. The currently available robotic surgical technology is described. Published data relating to the da Vinci system are reviewed and the current status of surgical robotics within Australia and New Zealand is assessed. The first da Vinci system in Australia and New Zealand was installed in 2003. Four systems had been installed by 2006 and seven systems are currently in use. Most of these are based in private hospitals. Technical advantages of this system include 3-D vision, enhanced dexterity and improved ergonomics when compared with standard laparoscopic surgery. Most procedures currently carried out are urological, with cardiac, gynaecological and general surgeons also using this system. The number of patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery in Australia and New Zealand has increased fivefold in the past 4 years. The most common procedure carried out is robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Published data suggest that robotic-assisted surgery is feasible and safe although the installation and recurring costs remain high. There is increasing acceptance of robotic-assisted surgery, especially for urological procedures. The da Vinci surgical system is becoming more widely available in Australia and New Zealand. Other surgical specialties will probably use this technology. Significant costs are associated with robotic technology and it is not yet widely available to public patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians., Patients and Methods: Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed., Results: A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability., Conclusions: Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa., (© 2023 BJU International.)

Background: Health care systems are increasingly looking to mobile device technologies (mobile health) to improve patient experience and health outcomes. SecondEars is a smartphone app designed to allow patients to audio-record medical consultations to improve recall, understanding, and health care self-management. Novel health interventions such as SecondEars often fail to be implemented post pilot-testing owing to inadequate user experience (UX) assessment, a key component of a comprehensive implementation strategy., Objective: This study aimed to pilot the SecondEars app within an active clinical setting to identify factors necessary for optimal implementation. Objectives were to (1) investigate patient UX and acceptability, utility, and satisfaction with the SecondEars app, and (2) understand health professional perspectives on issues, solutions, and strategies for effective implementation of SecondEars., Methods: A mixed methods implementation study was employed. Patients were invited to test the app to record consultations with participating oncology health professionals. Follow-up interviews were conducted with all participating patients (or carers) and health professionals, regarding uptake and extent of app use. Responses to the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) were also collected. Interviews were analyzed using interpretive descriptive methodology; all quantitative data were analyzed descriptively., Results: A total of 24 patients used SecondEars to record consultations with 10 multidisciplinary health professionals. In all, 22 of these patients used SecondEars to listen to all or part of the recording, either alone or with family. All 100% of patient participants reported in the MARS that they would use SecondEars again and recommend it to others. A total of 3 themes were identified from the patient interviews relating to the UX of SecondEars: empowerment, facilitating support in cancer care, and usability. Further, 5 themes were identified from the health professional interviews relating to implementation of SecondEars: changing hospital culture, mitigating medico-legal concerns, improving patient care, communication, and practical implementation solutions., Conclusions: Data collected during pilot testing regarding recording use, UX, and health professional and patient perspectives will be important for designing an effective implementation strategy for SecondEars. Those testing the app found it useful and felt that it could facilitate the benefits of consultation recordings, along with providing patient empowerment and support. Potential issues regarding implementation were discussed, and solutions were generated., Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000730202; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373915&isClinicalTrial=False., (©Amelia Hyatt, Ruby Lipson-Smith, Bryce Morkunas, Meinir Krishnasamy, Michael Jefford, Kathryn Baxter, Karla Gough, Declan Murphy, Allison Drosdowsky, Jo Phipps-Nelson, Fiona White, Alan White, Lesley Serong, Geraldine McDonald, Donna Milne. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 21.01.2020.)