Zoekresultaten

Stories of lymphoma survivors in early aftercare

Background: Survivors of lymphoma experience multiple challenges after treatment. However, a lack of knowledge of in-depth experiences of lymphoma survivors in early aftercare persists. Objective: To gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of lymphoma survivors in early aftercare who have received an aftercare consultation based on evidence-based guideline recommendations, with an advanced practice nurse. Methods: This study used a narrative design. We recruited lymphoma survivors after a best-practice aftercare consultationwith an advanced practice nurse. A total of 22 lymphoma survivors and 9 partners participated. Data were collected through narrative interviews and analyzed according to thematic narrative analysis. Results: Six themes emerged: living and dealing with health consequences, coping with work and financial challenges, having a positive outlook and dealing with uncertainty, deriving strength from and experiencing tensions in relationships, getting through tough times in life, and receiving support from healthcare professionals. Conclusions: The stories of lymphoma survivors in early aftercare revealed their experiences of how they coped with a range of challenges in their personal lives. Choosing an aftercare trajectory based on an aftercare consultation that encourages patients to think about their issues, goals, and possible aftercare options may be useful for their transition from treatment to survivorship. Implications for practice: Survivors’ social support and self-management capabilities are important aspects to be addressed in cancer care. An aftercare consultation involving shared goal setting and care planning may help nurses provide personalized aftercare.

Dutch translation and validation of the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB)—short form

BackgroundSeveral conditions and diseases can result in speech problems that can have a negative impact on everyday functioning, referred to as communicative participation. Subjective problems with acquired speech problems are often assessed with the speech handicap index (SHI). To assess generic participation problems, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation–Participation (USER-P) questionnaire is frequently used. The English questionnaire Communicative Participation Item Bank—short form (CPIB short form) is a 10-item valid, reliable instrument that assesses communicative participation. In the absence of a Dutch equivalent, translation and validation of the CPIB short form was required.AimsTo translate the CPIB short form into Dutch, and to determine its psychometric properties for the group of adults with speech problems resulting from a neurological aetiology or head and neck cancer.Methods & ProceduresTranslation of the CPIB short form was performed following the instructions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC). In a cross-sectional multi-centre study, participants completed the Dutch CPIB short form together with the SHI and USER-P, and the CPIB a second time after 2 weeks. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the CPIB. Construct validity was assessed based on correlations with SHI, USER-P and speech assessments.Outcomes & ResultsIn the validation study, 122 participants were included: 51 with dysarthria due to different neurological disorders, 48 with speech problems due to head and neck cancer treatment and 23 healthy controls. Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.962), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test–retest reliability was high 0.908 (95% CI = 0.870–0.935). Construct validity was supported by a strong correlation between the Dutch CPIB short form and the SHI total score (SHI total rs = 0.887) and a moderate correlation between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the USER-P subscales (USER-P Frequency rs = 0.365; USER-P restrictions and USER-P satisfaction rs = 0.546). A moderate correlation was found between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the speech performance assessments (degree of distortedness r = −0.0557; p ≤ 0.001; degree of intelligibility r = 0.0562).Conclusions & ImplicationsThe Dutch CPIB short form provides a valid and reliable tool for clinical practice and research purposes. It allows clinicians to start using this PROM in clinical and research practice to systematically investigate the impact of the speech problems on communicative participation in a Dutch-speaking population.What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectCommunicative participation allows people to take part in life situations, but can be affected by acquired speech problems. The CPIB is a patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of this concept. For the English language the 46-item bank and a 10-item short form is available.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis paper describes the process of translation of the CPIB short form into Dutch, and confirms its reproducibility and validity.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?With this validated Dutch version of the CPIB short form available, professionals can implement this tool in clinical and research practice to systematically evaluate communicative participation.

Study protocol of a prospective multicenter study comparing (cost-)effectiveness of a tailored interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation program to usual supportive care for patients treated with concomitant chemo- or bioradiotherapy

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).

Review Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Cancer Rehabilitation: A systematic review

This systematic review aims to get insight into the feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We will focus on quality (defined as the adherence to international guidelines for methods of CPET) and safety of CPET. Furthermore, we compare the peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2peak) values of patients with cancer with reference values for healthy persons to put these values into a clinical perspective. A computer aided search with ‘cardiopulmonary exercise testing’ and ‘cancer’ using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, CINAHL® and SPORTDiscus™ was carried out. We included studies in which CPET with continuous gas exchange analysis has been performed prior to a physical exercise programme in adults with cancer. Twenty studies describing 1158 patients were eligible. Reported adherence to international recommendations for CPET varied per item. In most studies, the methods of CPET were not reported in detail. Adverse events occurred in 1% of patients. The percentage V̇O2peak of reference values for healthy persons varied between 65% and 89% for tests before treatment, between 74% and 96% for tests during treatment and between 52% and 117% for tests after treatment. Our results suggest that CPET is feasible and seems to be safe for patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We recommend that standard reporting and quality guidelines should be followed for CPET methods. The decreased V̇O2peak values of patients with cancer indicate that physical exercise should be implemented in their standard care.

Occupational therapy in cancer rehabilitation

Exercise is medicine in oncology

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.