Implementing a Health Care Professional-Supported Digital Intervention for Survivors of Cancer in Primary Care:Qualitative Process Evaluation of the Renewed Intervention

Background: Primary care has an important role in supporting cancer survivors, yet support is limited because of practitioners’ perceived lack of expertise and time. A digital intervention for cancer survivors could provide an efficient way for primary care staff to support cancer survivors without the need to accumulate expertise and skills to help patients make behaviour changes, providing very brief support alongside this could maximise adherence to the digital interventions. Renewed is a digital intervention combining online behaviour change advice with brief healthcare practitioner support from a nurse or healthcare assistant. Knowledge about the views and experiences of primary care staff providing support alongside a digital intervention for cancer survivors is sparse, limiting understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of this type of intervention. Objective: To explore Supporters’ experiences of providing support to cancer survivors using Renewed, to understand potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of Renewed in practice, and investigate strengths and weaknesses of the intervention from the perspective of healthcare professionals.Methods: This was a qualitative process evaluation, nested within a large trial evaluating Renewed. Twenty-eight semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with nurses and healthcare assistants. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Four themes were developed during analysis which reflected factors that Supporters identified as hindering or enabling them to provide support alongside Renewed Online (Themes: Renewed Online as an acceptable digital tool with some improvements; confidence to enact the Supporter role; practicalities of delivering support alongside a digital intervention; and managing a patient-led approach). The analysis suggests that Supporters perceived that a digital intervention such as Renewed would be beneficial to support cancer survivors in primary care, and fit within current practices. However, barriers to providing support alongside a digital intervention were also identified, including concerns about how to facilitate rapport building and, in a minority, concerns about employing a non-directive approach, in which the majority of advice and support is provided through a digital intervention, with brief additional support provided by primary care staff. Conclusion: These findings add to the literature about how best to provide support alongside digital interventions, suggesting that whilst most practitioners cope well with a non-directive approach, a minority require more training to feel confident implementing this. This study suggests that barriers to providing formal support to cancer survivors in primary care could be successfully overcome with an approach like Renewed, where a digital intervention provides most of the support and expertise, and healthcare practitioners provide the additional brief human support to maximise engagement. Strategies to maximise the chances of successful implementation for this type of intervention are discussed. <br/

Improved phosphate‐based glass fiber performance achieved through acid etch/polydopamine treatment

Phosphate based glass fibres (PGF) are of interest as reinforcements for degradable implants, but have seen limited application due to their rapid loss of strength when subjected to aqueous conditions. Previous studies have utilised heat treatments to improve longer term strength retention at a significant cost to initial strength. In this study, acid etching is used to recover the initial fibre strength after heat treatment and a subsequent coating of polydopamine is applied to provide longer term retention of this recovered strength. After an initial loss of strength after heat treatment (1135-> 509 MPa), an optimised combination of acid treatment and polydopamine coating was able to recover to approximately 85% of the initial strength (969 MPa). The result was significant in comparison to acid treatment (647 MPa) or coating (688 MPa) alone. The combined acid/coating treatment was demonstrated to maintain fibre properties for at least 14 days, although the amount of polydopamine coating was observed to decrease over this period. The approach reported here is of importance as it offers the require

A randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention (Renewed) to support symptom management, wellbeing and quality of life in cancer survivors

Background: Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life.Aim: To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors.Design: Pragmatic parallel open randomised trial.Setting: UK general practices.Methods: People having finished primary treatment (&lt;= 10 years previously) for colo-rectal, breast or prostate cancers, with European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer QLQ-C30 score &lt;85, were randomised by online software to: 1) detailed ‘generic’ digital NHS support (‘LiveWell’;n=906), 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention (‘Renewed’;n=903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, distress, or 3) ‘Renewed-with-support’ (n=903): ‘Renewed’ with additional brief email and telephone support. Results: Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice: at 6 months (primary time point: n’s respectively 806;749;705) all groups improved, with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both intervention groups. By 12 months there were: small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed-with-support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% CIs 0.33-2.51); both groups improved global health (12 months: renewed: 3.06, 1.39-4.74; renewed-with-support: 2.78, 1.08-4.48), dyspnoea, constipation, and enablement, and lower NHS costs (generic advice £265: in comparison respectively £141 (153-128) and £77 (90-65) lower); and for Renewed-with-support improvement in several other symptom subscales. No harms were identified.Conclusion: Cancer survivors quality of life improved with detailed generic online support. Robustly developed bespoke digital support provides limited additional short term benefit, but additional longer term improvement in global healthenablement and symptom management, with substantially lower NHS costs.<br/

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

A randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention (renewed) to support symptom management, wellbeing and quality of life in cancer survivors

Background: Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life. Aim: To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors. Design: Pragmatic parallel open randomised trial. Setting: UK general practices. Methods: People having finished primary treatment (<= 10 years previously) for colo-rectal, breast or prostate cancers, with European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer QLQ-C30 score <85, were randomised by online software to: 1)detailed ‘generic’ digital NHS support (‘LiveWell’;n=906), 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention (‘Renewed’;n=903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, distress, or 3) ‘Renewed-with-support’ (n=903): ‘Renewed’ with additional brief email and telephone support. Results: Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice: at 6 months (primary time point: n’s respectively 806;749;705) all groups improved, with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both intervention groups. By 12 months there were: small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed-with-support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% CIs 0.33-2.51); both groups improved global health (12 months: renewed: 3.06, 1.39-4.74; renewed-with-support: 2.78, 1.08-4.48), dyspnoea, constipation, and enablement, and lower NHS costs (generic advice £265: in comparison respectively £141 (153-128) and £77 (90-65) lower); and for Renewed-with-support improvement in several other symptom subscales. No harms were identified. Conclusion: Cancer survivors quality of life improved with detailed generic online support. Robustly developed bespoke digital support provides limited additional short term benefit, but additional longer term improvement in global health enablement and symptom management, with substantially lower NHS costs

Unconscious Agendas in the Etiology of Refractory Obesity and the Role of Hypnosis in their Identification and Resolution

Hypnosis has long been recognized as an effective tool for producing behavioral change in the eating disorders anorexia and bulimia. Despite many studies from the latter half of the last century suggesting that hypnosis might also be of value in managing obesity situations, the efficacy of hypnotherapy for weight reduction has received surprisingly little formal research attention since 2000. This review presents a brief history of early clinical studies using hypnosis for weight reduction and describes a hypnotherapeutic approach within which a combination of instructional/pedagogic and exploratory therapeutic sessions can work together synergistically to maximize the potential for sustained weight loss. Hypnotic modulation of appetite- and satiation-associated peptides and hormone levels may yield additional physiological benefits in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes