Search

BackgroundHealth 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. ObjectiveThis 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsA 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. ConclusionsData 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 RegistrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000730202; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373915&isClinicalTrial=False

Return to work (RTW) is a marker of functional recovery for working‐age cancer survivors. Identifying factors that impact on RTW in cancer survivors is an essential step to guide further research and interventions to support RTW. This systematic review aimed to identify nontreatment, non‐cancer‐related variables impacting RTW in Australian cancer survivors. A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies were eligible if they included: (1) adults living post diagnosis of malignancy; (2) quantitative data for nontreatment, non‐cancer‐related variables impacting RTW; (3) only Australian participants. Included studies were critically appraised, and relevant data extracted and synthesized narratively. Six studies were included in the review, published between 2008 and 2020. Studies were of variable quality and mixed methodologies. One study included malignancies of any type with the remainder focusing on survivors of colorectal cancer (n = 3), oropharyngeal cancer (n = 1), and glioblastoma multiforme (n = 1). Multiple factors were related to RTW in individual studies, including older age, presence of three or more comorbidities, fewer work hours pre‐morbidly, lower body mass index, longer than recommended sleep duration, and not having private health insurance; however, there was limited consistency in findings between studies. Other variables examined included: occupation type, household income, healthy lifestyle behaviors, flexibility, and duration of employment with workplace; however, no significant associations with RTW were reported. Further research is required to gather compelling evidence on factors that influence RTW in Australian cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Up to 70% of people diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract or hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers experience substantial reductions in quality of life (QoL), including high distress levels, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, weight loss and difficulty swallowing. With few advocacy groups and support systems for adults with upper GI or HPB cancers (i.e. pancreas, liver, stomach, bile duct and oesophageal) and their carers, online supportive care programs may represent an alternate cost-effective mechanism to support this patient group and carers. iCare is a self-directed, interactive, online program that provides information, resources, and psychological packages to patients and their carers from the treatment phase of their condition. The inception and development of iCare has been driven by consumers, advocacy groups, government and health professionals. The aims of this study are to determine the feasibility and acceptability of iCare, examine preliminary efficacy on health-related QoL and carer burden at 3- and 6-months post enrolment, and the potential cost-effectiveness of iCare, from health and societal perspectives, for both patients and carers. Methods and analysis: A Phase II randomised controlled trial. Overall, 162 people with newly diagnosed upper GI or HPB cancers and 162 carers will be recruited via the Upper GI Cancer Registry, online advertisements, or hospital clinics. Patients and carers will be randomly allocated (1:1) to the iCare program or usual care. Participant assessments will be at enrolment, 3- and 6-months later. The primary outcomes are i) feasibility, measured by eligibility, recruitment, response and attrition rates, and ii) acceptability, measured by engagement with iCare (frequency of logins, time spent using iCare, and use of features over the intervention period). Secondary outcomes are patient changes in QoL and unmet needs, and carer burden, unmet needs and QoL. Linear mixed models will be fitted to obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy and variability for secondary outcomes. The economic analysis will include a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. Discussion: iCare provides a potential model of supportive care to improve QoL, unmet needs and burden of disease among people living with upper GI or HPB cancers and their carers. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12623001185651. This protocol reflects Version #1 26 April 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital‐based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth‐delivered care. Method: Qualitative data were collected via semi‐structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. Results: Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow‐up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth‐based follow‐up when there was no need for a clinical examination. Conclusions: This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth‐based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]