Supporting patients with low health literacy: what role do radiation therapists play?

Purpose: Health literacy plays a key role in a patient’s ability to use health information and services, and can affect health outcomes. This study aimed to explore radiation therapists’ perspectives on how they support people with lower health literacy who are undergoing radiotherapy. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 radiation therapists working in radiation oncology departments in New South Wales, Australia. Results: The four key themes were (1) the process of identifying a patient with low health literacy, (2) the perceived consequences of low health literacy, (3) managing and responding to the needs of different health literacy groups and (4) recommendations to address low health literacy in radiotherapy. Radiation therapists appeared to make an informal, intuitive judgment about a patient’s health literacy, using a variety of verbal and non-verbal cues as well as impromptu conversations with the multi-disciplinary team. Patients perceived to have lower health literacy were described as having greater difficulties assimilating knowledge and engaging in self-care. Although participants reported communicating to patients at a basic level initially, they subsequently tailored their communication to match a patient’s health literacy. Strategies reported to communicate to low health literacy groups ranged from using lay language with minimal medical terminology, using visual aids (photos), using analogies, reiterating information and asking family members with higher literacy to attend consultations. Conclusion: A more structured approach to supporting patients with low health literacy and integrating health literacy training in radiation oncology departments may help to minimise the adverse outcomes typically experienced by this population

Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: Does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study

Background: Patients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine whether the speciality of the assessor has an impact on how GP consultation performance is rated. Methods: Six pairs of scenarios were developed for professional actors in two series of consultations by GPs. The scenarios included: chronic radiation proctitis, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) ‘bounce’, recurrence of cancer, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction and depression or anxiety. Participating GPs were furnished with the patient’s past medical history, current medication, prostate cancer details and treatment, details of physical examinations. Consultations were video recorded and assessed for quality by two sets of assessors- a team of two GPs and two Radiation Oncologists deploying the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP). LAP scores by the GPs and Radiation Oncologists were compared. Results: Eight GPs participated. In Series 1 the range of LAP scores by GP assessors was 61%-80%, and 67%-86% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. The range for GP LAP scores in Series 2 was 51%- 82%, and 56%-89% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. Within GP assessor correlations for LAP scores were 0.31 and 0.87 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Within Radiation Oncologist assessor correlations were 0.50 and 0.72 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Radiation Oncologist and GP assessor scores were significantly different for 4 doctors and for some scenarios. Anticipatory care was the only domain where GPs scored participants higher than Radiation Oncologist assessors. Conclusion: The assessment of GP consultation performance is not consistent across assessors from different disciplines even when they deploy the same assessment tool

RT Prepare: a radiation therapist-delivered intervention reduces psychological distress in women with breast cancer referred for radiotherapy

© 2018 Cancer Research UK Background: The aims of this study were to determine whether a radiation therapist-led patient education intervention (RT Prepare) reduced breasts cancer patients’ psychological distress (primary endpoint); anxiety, depression and concerns about radiotherapy, and increased knowledge of radiotherapy and preparedness (secondary endpoints). Patient health system usage and costs were also assessed. Methods: A multiple-baseline study across three sites. The RT Prepare intervention comprised two consultations with a radiation therapist: prior to treatment planning and on the first day of treatment. Radiation therapists focused on providing sensory and procedural information and addressing patients’ pre-treatment anxiety. Usual care data were collected prior to intervention commencement. Data collection occurred: after meeting their radiation oncologist, prior to treatment planning, first day of treatment and after treatment completion. Multilevel mixed effects regression models were used. Results: In total, 218 usual care and 190 intervention patients participated. Compared with usual care, intervention participants reported lower psychological distress at treatment commencement (p = 0.01); lower concerns about radiotherapy (p < 0.01); higher patient knowledge (p < 0.001); higher preparedness for procedural concerns (p < 0.001) and higher preparedness for sensory-psychological concerns at treatment planning (p < 0.001). Mean within-trial costs per patient were estimated at $AU159 (US$120); mean ongoing costs at $AU35 (US$26). Conclusion: The RT Prepare intervention was effective in reducing breast cancer patients’ psychological distress and preparing patients for treatment. This intervention provides an opportunity for radiation therapists to extend their role into providing patients with information and support prior to treatment to reduce psychological distress

Feasibility Testing and Refinement of a Supportive Educational Intervention for Carers of Patients with High-Grade Glioma — a Pilot Study

The aim of this pilot study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a family carer intervention for carers of patients with high-grade glioma (HGG). The intervention consisted of: (1) an initial telephone assessment of carer needs; (2) a personalised tabbed resource file; (3) nurse-led home visit; and (4) ongoing telephone support. Two consumer representatives reviewed the intervention resources. The intervention was then piloted with participants who were the primary carer for patients undergoing treatment for HGG in Western Australia. Two consumers provided feedback on the resource, and 10 carers participated in the pilot. Positive feedback was received about the resource manual and intervention. Suggestions were also made for changes which were implemented into the trial. The surveys were shortened based on feedback. Participants identified a large range of issues during nursing assessments which would not otherwise be identified or addressed for carers receiving routine care. As a result of providing the intervention, the nurse was able to make referrals to address needs that were identified. This pilot study enabled us to refine and test the Care-IS intervention and test the feasibility and acceptability of proposed survey instruments. We were also able to estimate recruitment and retention and the overall study timeline required for the randomised controlled trial we are now conducting. It has also demonstrated the role of the nurse who delivered the intervention and allowed us to refine communication and referral pathways

A low literacy targeted talking book about radiation therapy for cancer: development and acceptability

© 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. Purpose: To develop a low literacy talking book (written book with accompanying audio-recording) about radiation therapy and explore its acceptability with patients and caregivers. Method: The talking book was developed iteratively using low literacy design principles and a multidisciplinary committee comprising consumers and experts in radiation oncology, nursing, behavioural sciences, and linguistics. It contained illustrations, photos, and information on: treatment planning, daily treatment, side effects, psychosocial health, and a glossary of medical terms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who self-reported low functional health literacy and caregivers to explore their views on the resource. Thematic analysis using a framework approach informed the analysis. Results: Participants were very satisfied with the content, illustrations, and language in the resource. Most were unfamiliar with the term ‘talking book’, but liked the option of different media (text and audio). The resource was seen as facilitating communication with the cancer care team by prompting question-asking and equipping patients and their families with knowledge to communicate confidently. Conclusions: The low literacy talking book was well accepted by patients and their caregivers. The next step is to examine the effect of the resource on patients’ knowledge, anxiety, concerns, and communication with the cancer care team