Supporting health impact assessment in practice

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a process that aims to predict potential positive and negative effects of project, programme or policy proposals on health and health inequalities. It is recommended by national government and internationally. Supporting health impact assessment is one of the roles of English Public Health Observatories.The few centres in England with accredited health impact training centres have inadequate resources to meet demand. Currently, the London Health Observatory is providing the bulk of the training nationally. Some Public Health Observatories are currently investigating the preferences for support of those commissioning or conducting health impact assessment within their regions.The availability of published guidance on how to conduct health impact assessments has increased substantially over the past few years. The Department of Health has funded a research project led by the London Health Observatory to develop advice for reviewing evidence for use in health impact assessment. Completed health impact assessments can be useful resources. Evaluation of the process and impact of health impact assessment is important in order to demonstrate its usefulness and to learn lessons for the future.The focus for Public Health Observatories is to train and support others to conduct health impact assessment according to good practice, rather than undertaking health impact assessments themselves. The aim is to create sufficient skilled capacity around the country to undertake health impact assessments. The London Health Observatory plans to share its support models and to roll out a train the trainer programme nationally to enable effective local delivery of their national health impact assessment programme. (c) 2005 The Royal Institue of Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

A systematic review of cancer caregiver interventions: Appraising the potential for implementation of evidence into practice

© 2019 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objective: nformal caregivers provide substantial support for people living with cancer. Previous systematic reviews report on the efficacy of cancer caregiver interventions but not their potential to be implemented. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential for cancer caregiver interventions to be implemented into practice. Methods: We searched three electronic databases to identify cancer caregiver interventions on 5 January 2018. We operationalised six implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and costs) into a tool to guide data extraction. Results: The search yielded 33 papers (27 papers from electronic databases and six papers from other sources) reporting on 26 studies that met review criteria. Fewer than half the studies (46%) contained evidence about the acceptability of interventions from caregivers' perspectives; only two studies (8%) included interventions developed with input from caregivers. Two studies (8%) addressed potential adoption of interventions, and no studies discussed intentions, agreement, or action to implement interventions into practice. All studies reported on intervention appropriateness by providing a rationale for the interventions. For feasibility, on average less than one-third of caregivers who were eligible to be involved consented to participate. On fidelity, whether interventions were conducted as intended was reported in 62% of studies. Cost data were reported in terms of intervention delivery, requiring a median time commitment of staff of 180 minutes to be delivered. Conclusions: Caregiver intervention studies lack components of study design and reporting that could bridge the gap between research and practice. There is enormous potential for improvements in cancer caregiver intervention study design to plan for future implementation

Does implementation matter if comprehension is lacking? A qualitative investigation into perceptions of advance care planning in people with cancer

Purpose: While advance care planning holds promise, uptake is variable and it is unclear how well people engage with or comprehend advance care planning. The objective of this study was to explore how people with cancer comprehended Advance Care Plans and examine how accurately advance care planning documentation represented patient wishes. Methods: This study used a qualitative descriptive design. Data collection comprised interviews and an examination of participants’ existing advance care planning documentation. Participants included those who had any diagnosis of cancer with an advance care plan recorded: Refusal of Treatment Certificate; Statement of Choices; and/or Enduring Power of Attorney (Medical Treatment) at one cancer treatment centre. Results: Fourteen participants were involved in the study. Twelve participants were female (86%). The mean age was 77 (range: 61-91) and participants had completed their advance care planning documentation between 8 and 72 weeks prior to the interview (mean 33 weeks). Three themes were evident from the data: Incomplete advance care planning understanding and confidence; Limited congruence for attitude and documentation; Advance care planning can enable peace of mind. Complete advance care planning understanding was unusual; most participants demonstrated partial comprehension of their own advance care plan, and some indicated very limited understanding. Participants’ attitudes and their written document congruence was limited, but advance care planning was seen as helpful. Conclusions: This study highlighted advance care planning was not a completely accurate representation of patient wishes. There is opportunity to improve how patients comprehend their own advance care planning documentation

Healthy living after cancer: a dissemination and implementation study evaluating a telephone-delivered healthy lifestyle program for cancer survivors

Background: Given evidence shows physical activity, a healthful diet and weight management can improve cancer outcomes and reduce chronic disease risk, the major cancer organisations and health authorities have endorsed related guidelines for cancer survivors. Despite these, and a growing evidence base on effective lifestyle interventions, there is limited uptake into survivorship care. Methods/Design: Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) is a national dissemination and implementation study that will evaluate the integration of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors into an existing telephone cancer information and support service delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils. Eligible participants (adults having completed cancer treatment with curative intent) will receive 12 health coaching calls over 6 months from Cancer Council nurses/allied health professionals targeting national guidelines for physical activity, healthy eating and weight control. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes are service-level indicators of program reach, adoption, implementation/costs and maintenance, with secondary (effectiveness) outcomes of patient-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables collected at pre- and post-program completion. The total participant accrual target across four participating Cancer Councils is 900 over 3 years. Discussion: The national scope of the project and broad inclusion of cancer survivors, alongside evaluation of service-level indicators, associated costs and patient-reported outcomes, will provide the necessary practice-based evidence needed to inform future allocation of resources to support healthy living among cancer survivors.Elizabeth G. Eakin, Sandra C. Hayes, Marion R. Haas, Marina M. Reeves, Janette L. Vardy, Frances Boyle, Janet E. Hiller, Gita D. Mishra, Ana D. Goode, Michael Jefford, Bogda Koczwara, Christobel M. Saunders, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, Kerry S. Courneya, Kathryn H. Schmitz, Afaf Girgis, Kate White, Kathy Chapman, Anna G. Boltong, Katherine Lane, Sandy McKiernan, Lesley Millar, Lorna O, Brien, Greg Sharplin, Polly Baldwin and Erin L. Robso

Efficacy of a telephone outcall program to reduce caregiver burden among caregivers of cancer patients [PROTECT]: a randomised controlled trial

Informal caregivers provide extended support to people with cancer but they receive little support from the health care system to assist them in their caring role. The aim of this single-blind, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial was to test the efficacy of a telephone outcall program to reduce caregiver burden and unmet needs, and improve psychological well-being among cancer caregivers, as well as evaluating the potential impact on patient outcomes.Cancer patient/caregiver dyads (N = 216) were randomised to a telephone outcall program (n = 108) or attention control group (n = 108). The primary outcome was self-reported caregiver burden. Secondary endpoints included depressive symptoms, unmet needs, self-esteem, self-empowerment, and health literacy. Data were collected at baseline and at both 1 and 6 months post-intervention. An intention to treat analysis was performed.The intervention had no effect on the primary outcome (caregiver burden), but reduced the number of caregiver unmet needs (intervention group baseline, mean = 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.91-3.54]; intervention group 1 month post intervention, mean = 0.85, 95%CI [0.42-1.44]; control group baseline, mean = 1.30 95%CI [0.80-1.94], control group 1 month post intervention, mean = 1.02 95%CI [0.52-1.69]; p = 0.023). For caregivers at risk for depression, the intervention had a significant effect on caregivers' confidence in having sufficient information to manage their health (p = 0.040). No effects were found for patients' depressive symptoms, unmet needs, self-empowerment, and other health literacy domains.While caregiver burden was not reduced, the outcall program was effective in reducing unmet needs in caregivers. Provision of cancer information and support via a telephone service may represent a feasible approach to reducing unmet needs among cancer caregiver populations.ACTRN12613000731796 ; prospectively registered on 02/07/2013.Leila Heckel, Kate M. Fennell, John Reynolds, Anna Boltong, Mari Botti, Richard H. Osborne, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Jacquie Chirgwin, Melinda Williams, Cadeyrn J. Gaskin, David M. Ashley and Patricia M. Livingsto

Healthy Living after Cancer: A dissemination and implementation study evaluating a telephone-delivered healthy lifestyle program for cancer survivors

© 2015 Eakin et al. Background: Given evidence shows physical activity, a healthful diet and weight management can improve cancer outcomes and reduce chronic disease risk, the major cancer organisations and health authorities have endorsed related guidelines for cancer survivors. Despite these, and a growing evidence base on effective lifestyle interventions, there is limited uptake into survivorship care. Methods/Design: Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) is a national dissemination and implementation study that will evaluate the integration of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors into an existing telephone cancer information and support service delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils. Eligible participants (adults having completed cancer treatment with curative intent) will receive 12 health coaching calls over 6 months from Cancer Council nurses/allied health professionals targeting national guidelines for physical activity, healthy eating and weight control. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes are service-level indicators of program reach, adoption, implementation/costs and maintenance, with secondary (effectiveness) outcomes of patient-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables collected at pre- and post-program completion. The total participant accrual target across four participating Cancer Councils is 900 over 3 years. Discussion: The national scope of the project and broad inclusion of cancer survivors, alongside evaluation of service-level indicators, associated costs and patient-reported outcomes, will provide the necessary practice-based evidence needed to inform future allocation of resources to support healthy living among cancer survivors. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12615000882527(registered on 24/08/2015