Search

Background: Healthy behaviors, that is, engaging in regular physical activities, maintaining a healthy diet, limiting alcohol consumption, and avoiding tobacco and drug use, decrease the risk of developing late adverse health conditions in childhood cancer survivors. However, childhood cancer survivors may experience barriers to adopting and maintaining healthy behaviors. This study aimed to assess these barriers and facilitators to health behavior adoption and maintenance in childhood cancer survivors. Methods: A focus group (n = 12) and semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 20) were conducted with a selected sample of European and Dutch childhood cancer survivors, respectively. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to inform the topic guide and analysis. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to identify categories relating to barriers and facilitators of health behavior adoption and maintenance, after which they were deductively mapped onto the TDF. Results: Ten TDF domains were identified in the data of which “Knowledge,” “Beliefs about consequences,” “Environmental context and resources,” and “Social influences” were most commonly reported. Childhood cancer survivors expressed a need for knowledge on the importance of healthy behaviors, possibly provided by healthcare professionals. They indicated physical and long-term benefits of healthy behaviors, available professional support, and a supporting and health-consciously minded work and social environment to be facilitators. Barriers were mostly related to a lack of available time and an unhealthy environment. Lastly, (social) media was perceived as both a barrier and a facilitator to healthy behaviors. Conclusion: This study has identified education and available professional support in health behaviors and the relevance of healthy behaviors for childhood cancer survivors as key opportunities for stimulating health behavior adoption in childhood cancer survivors. Incorporating health behavior support and interventions for this population should therefore be a high priority.

Background Physical inactivity and unhealthy dietary habits are known to be disadvantageous for the development of late adverse effects in survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer. To make interventions, aimed at improving lifestyle, fit into the daily life of survivors, interventions should be designed and delivered in a person-centred way with a limited time burden. As part of the European PanCareFollowUp project, an eHealth intervention was developed to support sustainable changes to physical activity levels and/or diet of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors. This feasibility study aims to gain insight into the feasibility and potential effect sizes of the PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention. Methods The PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention consists of person-centred 3–6 screen-to-screen sessions with a certified lifestyle coach. The intervention will be evaluated with a single-arm pre-post feasibility study conducted at two survivorship care clinics in the Netherlands. A total of 60 participants who are (i) diagnosed with cancer Discussion Data of this study will be gathered to assess the feasibility and potential effect sizes. This will allow for further intervention refinement as needed as well as to inform a future large-scale intervention study and a manual for implementation at other centres. Trial registration International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) number: NL8932 (ICTRP Search Portal (who.int)). Registered on September 29, 2020.

Contains fulltext : 291775.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) have an increased risk of developing chronic health conditions. Evidence suggests that poor health behaviors further increase health risks. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in survivorship care have a key role in providing health behavior support (HBS) but can feel limited in their ability to do so. This study aims to explore European HCPs perceived facilitators and barriers to providing HBS to CCSs. METHODS: Five focus groups with 30 HCPs from survivorship care clinics across Europe were conducted. Topic guides were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to capture domains that may influence provision of HBS. Focus groups were analyzed with thematic analysis. Transcripts were inductively coded, after which axial coding was applied to organize codes into categories. Finally, categories were mapped onto the TDF domains. RESULTS: Nine TDF domains were identified in the data. The most commonly reported TDF domains were "Knowledge", "Skills", and "Environmental context and resources". HCPs indicated that their lack of knowledge of the association between late effects and health behaviors, besides time restrictions, were barriers to HBS. Facilitators for HBS included possession of skills needed to pass on health behavior information, good clinic organization, and an established network of HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified education and training of HCPs as key opportunities to improve HBS. Survivorship care clinics should work towards establishing well-integrated structured care with internal and external networks including HBS being part of routine care. Proper understanding of facilitators and barriers should lead to better survivorship care for CCSs.

To achieve climate mitigation targets considerable behaviour change is needed. The evidence base for effective interventions for climate mitigation behaviour change at individual and population level is in its infancy and well behind the evidence base for health. Climate mitigation and health behaviours have similarities in terms of their motivational and social determinants, and potentially their mechanisms of change. Understanding similarities between behaviours might guide the transfer of existing evidence to new applications. The aim of this study is to develop a classification of determinants of climate mitigation and health behaviours and compare and contrast characteristics. The study started with a pilot study (n=2) and a small-scale (n=5) round of interviews, followed by a second round of interviews with another 10 behaviour (change) experts. They were interviewed using a repertory grid method. Respondents were asked to describe how two behaviours from a triad are similar to each other and different from a third in terms of determinants. The provided characteristics were inductively categorized. In total, each respondent evaluated eight triads. Preliminary results revealed key determinants of climate mitigation behaviours and analysed how they compare to health behaviours. A broad range of determinants (n=31) emerged, including effort, behavioural patterns (e.g. habit), resources (e.g. energy saved), outcomes (e.g. long-term benefits) and behavioural regulation (e.g. requiring planning). This study demonstrated how multidimensional (health and) climate mitigation behaviours are. Further research efforts are needed to increase our understanding of determinants of mitigation behaviours and support the development of effective interventions.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of reperfusion therapies in acute ischemic stroke are highly time-dependent. It is crucial that people who witness the onset of symptoms call emergency medical services (EMS) immediately. The aim of this study was to examine whether there is a gap between recognition of stroke and responding correctly by calling EMS using a scenario-based measure. METHODS: Population-based survey of 1406 individuals from Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, examining stroke recognition and response knowledge using 12 scenario-based vignettes. The response rate was 32% out of 5000 contacted individuals. In total, 16,574 responses to scenarios were examined to investigate whether respondents would recognise stroke symptoms and indicate to call EMS immediately. RESULTS: In 16% of cases people recognised stroke but did not correctly respond by indicating to call EMS. In 49% of responses people recognised stroke and would respond correctly, while in 31% of cases people both failed to correctly recognise and failed to identify the correct response to the stroke scenario. In 5% of cases stroke was not identified but a correct response was indicated. When stroke was recognised, in 25% of responses people indicated that they would not call EMS. Recognition self-efficacy and response self-efficacy were associated with correct response. CONCLUSIONS: A recognition-response gap was identified among UK adults in hypothetical scenarios concerning stroke. Both recognition and translation to adequate EMS response should be explicitly addressed in interventions aiming to improve witness response to stroke. Self-efficacy may be a promising target to close the recognition-response gap.