Workforce characteristics and interventions associated with high-quality care and support to older people with cancer: A systematic review

Objectives: To provide an overview of the evidence base on the effectiveness of workforce interventions for improving the outcomes for older people with cancer, as well as analysing key features of the workforce associated with those improvements. Design: Systematic review. Methods: Relevant databases were searched for primary research, published in English, reporting on older people and cancer and the outcomes of interventions to improve workforce knowledge, attitudes or skills; involving a change in workforce composition and/or skill mix; and/or requiring significant workforce reconfiguration or new roles. Studies were also sought on associations between the composition an d characteristics of the cancer care workforce and older people's outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted and supported by tabulation of key study data. Results: Studies (n=24) included 4555 patients aged 60+ from targeted cancer screening to end of life care. Interventions were diverse and two-Thirds of the studies were assessed as low quality. Only two studies directly targeted workforce knowledge and skills and only two studies addressed the nature of workforce features related to improved outcomes. Interventions focused on discrete groups of older people with specific needs offering guidance or psychological support were more effective than those broadly targeting survival outcomes. Advanced Practice Nursing roles, voluntary support roles and the involvement of geriatric teams provided some evidence of effectiveness. Conclusions: An array of workforce interventions focus on improving outcomes for older people with cancer but these are diverse and thinly spread across the cancer journey. Higher quality and larger scale research that focuses on workforce features is now needed to guide developments in this field, and review findings indicate that interventions targeted at specific subgroups of older people with complex needs, and that involve input from advanced practice nurses, geriatric teams and trained volunteers appear most promising

A conceptually new treatment approach for relapsed glioblastoma: Coordinated undermining of survival paths with nine repurposed drugs (CUSP9) by the International Initiative for Accelerated Improvement of Glioblastoma Care.

To improve prognosis in recurrent glioblastoma we developed a treatment protocol based on a combination of drugs not traditionally thought of as cytotoxic chemotherapy agents but that have a robust history of being well-tolerated and are already marketed and used for other non-cancer indications. Focus was on adding drugs which met these criteria: a) were pharmacologically well characterized, b) had low likelihood of adding to patient side effect burden, c) had evidence for interfering with a recognized, well-characterized growth promoting element of glioblastoma, and d) were coordinated, as an ensemble had reasonable likelihood of concerted activity against key biological features of glioblastoma growth. We found nine drugs meeting these criteria and propose adding them to continuous low dose temozolomide, a currently accepted treatment for relapsed glioblastoma, in patients with recurrent disease after primary treatment with the Stupp Protocol. The nine adjuvant drug regimen, Coordinated Undermining of Survival Paths, CUSP9, then are aprepitant, artesunate, auranofin, captopril, copper gluconate, disulfiram, ketoconazole, nelfinavir, sertraline, to be added to continuous low dose temozolomide. We discuss each drug in turn and the specific rationale for use- how each drug is expected to retard glioblastoma growth and undermine glioblastoma's compensatory mechanisms engaged during temozolomide treatment. The risks of pharmacological interactions and why we believe this drug mix will increase both quality of life and overall survival are reviewed

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: A pooled analysis of studies using the control preferences scale

Objectives: To collect normative data, assess differences between demographic groups, and indirectly compare US and Canadian medical systems relative to patient expectations of involvement in cancer treatment decision making. Study Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: Individual patient data were compiled across 6 clinical studies among 3491 patients with cancer who completed the 2-item Control Preferences Scale indicating the roles they preferred versus actually experienced in treatment decision making. Results: The roles in treatment decision making that patients preferred were 26% active, 49% collaborative, and 25% passive. The roles that patients reported actually experiencing were 30% active, 34% collaborative, and 36% passive. Roughly 61% of patients reported having their preferred role; only 6% experienced extreme discordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More men than women (66% vs 60%, P = .001) and more US patients than Canadian patients (84% vs 54%, P <.001) reported concordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More Canadian patients than US patients preferred and actually experienced (42% vs 18%, P <.001) passive roles. More women than men reported taking a passive role (40% vs 24%, P <.001). Older patients preferred and were more likely than younger patients to assume a passive role. Conclusions: Roughly half of the studied patients with cancer indicated that they preferred to have a collaborative relationship with physicians. Although most patients had the decision-making role they preferred, about 40% experienced discordance. This highlights the need for incorporation of individualized patient communication styles into treatment plans

Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: A pooled analysis of studies using the control preferences scale

OBJECTIVES: To collect normative data, assess differences between demographic groups, and indirectly compare US and Canadian medical systems relative to patient expectations of involvement in cancer treatment decision making. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: Individual patient data were compiled across 6 clinical studies among 3491 patients with cancer who completed the 2-item Control Preferences Scale indicating the roles they preferred versus actually experienced in treatment decision making. RESULTS: The roles in treatment decision making that patients preferred were 26% active, 49% collaborative, and 25% passive. The roles that patients reported actually experiencing were 30% active, 34% collaborative, and 36% passive. Roughly 61% of patients reported having their preferred role; only 6% experienced extreme discordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More men than women (66% vs 60%, P = .001) and more US patients than Canadian patients (84% vs 54%, P <.001) reported concordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More Canadian patients than US patients preferred and actually experienced (42% vs 18%, P <.001) passive roles. More women than men reported taking a passive role (40% vs 24%, P <.001). Older patients preferred and were more likely than younger patients to assume a passive role. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly half of the studied patients with cancer indicated that they preferred to have a collaborative relationship with physicians. Although most patients had the decision-making role they preferred, about 40% experienced discordance. This highlights the need for incorporation of individualized patient communication styles into treatment plans

Health‐related quality of life and employment among renal transplant recipients

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91355/1/ctr1541.pd

Effectiveness of palliative care interventions offering social support to people with life-limiting illness—A systematic review

Individuals managing the challenges of life-limiting illness require adequate social support to maintain quality of life. Qualitative research reports that patients value highly the social support obtained in palliative care interventions such as day care and group therapies. This systematic review aims to summarise existing quantitative evidence on palliative care interventions that facilitate social support. Research literature was systematically searched using electronic databases and key journals. Searches returned a total of 6,247 unique titles of which sixteen were eligible for inclusion. Interventions include group therapies, group practical interventions and palliative day care. Outcome measures and study designs were heterogeneous. Only one study used a validated outcome measure of social support. Benefits were influenced by participant characteristics such as baseline distress. Partial economic evaluation was attempted by two studies. Methodological challenges include attrition and use of outcome measures that were insensitive to change. Statistically significant results were reported in psychological and physical domains. Evidence is limited due to methodological issues and a scarcity of quantitative research, particularly regarding long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness. Interventions may be more beneficial to some groups than others