Delphi Study to Determine Rehabilitation Research Priorities for Older Adults With Cancer

Setting a Patient-Driven Agenda for Cancer Research Priorities in Geriatric Oncology: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore older adults' perceptions of priorities for research in cancer and hematological malignancies and proposes an agenda of patient-driven priorities for cancer care research in the field of geriatric oncology.

DATA SOURCES

Sixteen older adults (≥65 years) living with or after a diagnosis of cancer participated in a descriptive qualitative study. Participants were purposively recruited via a regional cancer center and cancer advocacy organizations. Semistructured telephone interviews explored participants' experiences of cancer and perceptions of priorities for future cancer-related research.

CONCLUSION

Participants reported positive experiences of cancer care. However, positive and negative experiences of information, symptoms, and support both within and beyond the hospital setting were highlighted. Forty-two research priorities in six thematic areas were identified: 1) recognition of the signs and symptoms of cancer; 2) research about cancer treatment; 3) assessment and management of comorbidities; 4) unmet needs of older adults living with and after cancer; 5) impact of COVID-19; and 6) impact on caregivers and family members of people living with and after cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The results of this study provide a basis for future priority-setting activities that are culturally and contextually sensitive to health care systems, resources, and needs of older adults living with and after cancer. Based on the findings of this study, we make recommendations for the development of interventions that can build awareness, capacity, and competence in geriatric oncology among cancer care professionals and consideration of the diverse needs of older adults in the development of interventions to address unmet information and supportive care needs.

Preferences on Delivery of Cancer Rehabilitation Services for Cancer-Related Disability Among Older Individuals Surviving Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Background

Older individuals surviving breast cancer often encounter cancer-related disability as a short-term or long-term effect of cancer and related treatment. Cancer rehabilitation interventions have the potential to prevent, mitigate, or remediate cancer-related disability. However, use of these services remains limited. Understanding the priorities and perspectives of older individuals surviving breast cancer is key to developing effective and implementable cancer rehabilitation interventions. This qualitative descriptive study examined individuals' preferred and valued methods of cancer rehabilitation intervention delivery.

Methods

Using a qualitative descriptive design, older individuals surviving breast cancer (n=14) completed a single telephone-based semi-structure interview. Interviews explored survivors' preferences for cancer rehabilitation service delivery. Interview transcriptions were thematically analyzed. Open codes were inductively generated and reviewed for agreement by an independent reviewer. The codes were deductively organized. Differences were resolved through consensus meetings.

Results

Findings revealed preferred intervention delivery characteristics for intervention setting, mode of delivery, format, and timing. Participants predominantly preferred interventions delivered in community-based settings, with both in-person and remote components. Participants also appeared to value one-on-one interventions and those delivered post-treatment. Survivors' overarching preferences were based on desire for patient-centric care, one-on-one therapist time, complex medical schedules, and financial concerns.

Discussion

Study findings provide guidance on the modification of existing and creation of new cancer rehabilitation interventions addressing cancer-related disability in older individuals surviving breast cancer. Adoption of stakeholder-driven intervention delivery characteristics may improve value and acceptability of interventions. Future intervention research should incorporate and test these characteristics to ensure their effectiveness in real-world settings.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme

OBJECTIVE

To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low.

CONCLUSION

Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Protocol paper: Multi-site, cluster-randomized clinical trial for optimizing functional outcomes of older cancer survivors after chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors over the age of 65 have unique needs due to the higher prevalence of functional and cognitive impairment, comorbidities, geriatric syndromes, and greater need for social support after chemotherapy. In this study, we will evaluate whether a Geriatric Evaluation and Management-Survivorship (GEMS) intervention improves functional outcomes important to older cancer survivors following chemotherapy.

METHODS

A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in approximately 30 community oncology practices affiliated with the University of Rochester Cancer Center (URCC) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base. Participating sites will be randomized to the GEMS intervention, which includes Advanced Practice Practitioner (APP)-directed geriatric evaluation and management (GEM), and Survivorship Health Education (SHE) that is combined with Exercise for Cancer Patients (EXCAP©®), or usual care. Cancer survivors will be recruited from community oncology practices (of participating oncology physicians and APPs) after the enrolled clinicians have consented and completed a baseline survey. We will enroll 780 cancer survivors aged 65 years and older who have completed curative-intent chemotherapy for a solid tumor malignancy within four weeks of study enrollment. Cancer survivors will be asked to choose one caregiver to also participate for a total up to 780 caregivers. The primary aim is to compare the effectiveness of GEMS for improving patient-reported physical function at six months. The secondary aim is to compare effectiveness of GEMS for improving patient-reported cognitive function at six months. Tertiary aims include comparing the effectiveness of GEMS for improving: 1) Patient-reported physical function at twelve months; 2) objectively assessed physical function at six and twelve months; and 3) patient-reported cognitive function at twelve months and objectively assessed cognitive function at six and twelve months. Exploratory health care aims include: 1) Survivor satisfaction with care, 2) APP communication with primary care physicians (PCPs), 3) completion of referral appointments, and 4) hospitalizations at six and twelve months. Exploratory caregiver aims include: 1) Caregiver distress; 2) caregiver quality of life; 3) caregiver burden; and 4) satisfaction with patient care at six and twelve months.

DISCUSSION

If successful, GEMS would be an option for a standardized APP-led survivorship care intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05006482, registered on August 9, 2021.

Development of an intervention influencing activity limitations in older breast cancer survivors: A modified Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Older breast cancer survivors have difficulty accessing rehabilitation interventions addressing activity limitations. Stakeholder input may improve accessibility of interventions. We sought expert consensus on intervention content and delivery features (e.g., where, mode, duration) to inform development of more accessible interventions for this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi process with patient, clinical, administrative, and research experts. In Round 1, experts evaluated content and delivery features according to domains of feasibility and prioritization. In Round 2, panelists were asked to re-rank or confer agreement of content and delivery features that met Round 1 consensus. Ranking was based on median score. Consensus was defined as a percentage of panelists that ranked an option within one unit of the median. For nominal data, consensus was defined as percent agreement.

RESULTS

Panelists (n = 20) prioritized physical activity strategies (Median Rank: 2; Consensus: 85%) and adaptive skills training (3; 65%). Panelists also prioritized delivery through outpatient services (1; 100%), post-treatment (1; 100%), combination mode of delivery (100%), duration of three months or less (100%) and occurring one to two days per week (100%).

DISCUSSION

Cancer rehabilitation interventions should be designed with input from stakeholders. The stakeholder intervention priorities identified in this study (e.g., content, setting, and mode) may improve relevance and accessibility of future cancer rehabilitation interventions. Interventions delivered in outpatient clinics and post-treatment using virtual and in-person visits may improve accessibility. Future research should examine the effectiveness and implementation of these intervention characteristics.

Impact of non-pharmacological interventions on activity limitations and participation restrictions in older breast cancer survivors: A scoping review

Cancer-related disability is a complex problem for older breast cancer survivors. One aspect of cancer-related disability is a survivor's inability to complete meaningful daily activities and engage in life roles, referred to as activity limitations and participation restrictions respectively. There is a limited understanding of how interventions influence activity limitations and participation restrictions in this population. A scoping review was undertaken to identify and characterize nonpharmacological interventions developed to address activity limitations and participation restrictions. A systematic search of electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, and Ovid PsycINFO) was conducted in April 2020 and updated October 2020. Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. Most frequently observed delivery features were in-person and one-on-one format. Six interventions incorporated telehealth delivery components. Interventions were often complex and varied in content. Exercise and behavioral strategies were among the most frequently used active ingredients. Activity limitations and participation restrictions were often secondary outcomes, and measures of these outcomes were varied in content and assessment method. Study samples were not representative of the current population of older adult breast cancer survivors. Future intervention research should clarify intervention delivery, content, and dose, prioritize comprehensive measurement of activity limitations and participation restrictions, as well as recruit and involve representative study samples to enhance generalizability of findings.

Examination of Cancer and Aging Through Activities of Daily Living: A National Health and Aging Trends Study Analysis

Objectives: This study longitudinally examined how older adult cancer survivors perceive disability in activities of daily living over time compared to older adults who have not had cancer. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study examining participants with a new cancer diagnosis and age-, gender-, and comorbidity-matched comparison participants without a history of cancer. Generalized linear mixed models examined time and group interaction and main effects in disability. Results: There was a significant main effect of time (F_4,771 = 12.81; p < .0001) demonstrating increasing disability levels for both groups. There were significant group differences, with higher disability in the cancer group than the comparison group (β = 0.628, SE = 0.263; t = 2.39, p = 0.017). Discussion: Although perceived disability was greater immediately following cancer diagnosis, older adult cancer survivors and comparison participants appear to have similar perceived disability over time.

Impact of cancer and cancer-related treatments on participation restrictions

Introduction

The purpose of this research was to describe participation restrictions in younger and older adult cancer survivors post treatment.

Method

Younger adult cancer survivors ( n = 20) and older adult cancer survivors ( n = 21) completed questionnaires and a semi-structured interview of satisfaction with daily life activities and self-reported health outcomes in a single visit. Reports were based on recall during treatment and current perspectives post treatment.

Results

Despite general health short forms revealing health within normal limits, semi-structured interview approaches revealed dissatisfaction with occupational performance in both younger and older adult cancer survivors. Older adults reported persistent dissatisfaction with instrumental activities from diagnosis through post treatment compared to younger adult cancer survivors. Older adults received fewer referrals for cancer rehabilitation services (19%) compared to younger adult cancer survivors (50%).

Conclusion

Dissatisfaction with daily life activities persists several years post cancer diagnosis in older and younger adult cancer survivors, despite self-reported health within normal limits. Impairment-based short forms may lack sensitivity to detect activity limitations and participation restrictions conveyed through in-depth assessment. Adoption of more comprehensive screening methods may be needed for timely referral to cancer-based occupational therapy services.

Older Adults with Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Occupational and Physical Therapy

OBJECTIVES

The impact of occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) on functional outcomes in older adults with cancer is unknown.

DESIGN

Two-arm single-institution randomized controlled trial of outpatient OT/PT.

SETTING

Comprehensive cancer center with two off-site OT/PT clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited adults 65 years and older with a recent diagnosis or recurrence of cancer within 5 years, with at least one functional limitation as identified by a geriatric assessment. Participants were randomized to OT/PT or usual care.

INTERVENTION

Rehabilitation consisted of individualized OT and PT that addressed functional activities and strength/endurance needs.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was functional status as measured by the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Mental Health (GMH) and Global Physical Health (GPH), ability to participate in Social Roles (SR), physical function, and activity expectations and self-efficacy (Possibilities for Activity Scale [PActS]).

RESULTS

Among those recruited (N = 63), only 45 patients (71%) were evaluable due to loss of follow-up and/or nonreceipt of intervention. The median age was 74 years; 53% were female, and 91% were white. Overall, 30% patients had hematologic malignancies, 30% breast cancer, and 16% colorectal cancers. A total of 65% were in active treatment; 49% had stage 3 or 4 disease. At follow-up, both OT/PT (P = .02) and usual care (P = .03) groups experienced a decline in functional status. PActS scores between groups (P = .04) was significantly improved in the intervention group. GMH and SR met criteria for minimally important clinical difference favoring the intervention, but not statistical significance. Several barriers were noted in the implementation of the intervention program: recruitment, concerns about cost, distance, scheduling, and limited treatment provided.

CONCLUSION

OT/PT may positively influence activity expectations and self-efficacy. Future research needs to address significant barriers to implementation to increase use of OT/PT services and access to quality care. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:953-960, 2019.

Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) With a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated over the last decade. However, closer examination of the published literature reveals that the majority of this work has focused on psychological interventions and cognitive and behavioral therapies. Recent initiatives have aggregated expert consensus around research priorities, highlighting a dearth in research regarding measurement of and interventions for physical function. Increasingly loud calls for the need to address the myriad of physical functional impairments that develop in people living with and beyond cancer have been published in the literature. A detailed survey of the landscape of published research has not been reported to our knowledge.

PURPOSE

This scoping review systematically identified literature published between 2008 and 2018 related to the screening, assessment, and interventions associated with physical function in people living with and beyond cancer.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to September 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Study selection included articles of all levels of evidence on any disease stage and population. A total of 11,483 articles were screened for eligibility, 2507 full-text articles were reviewed, and 1055 articles were selected for final inclusion and extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION

Seven reviewers recorded type of cancer, disease stage, age of participants, phase of treatment, time since diagnosis, application to physical function, study design, impairments related to physical function, and measurement instruments used.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Approximately one-third of the articles included patients with various cancer diagnoses (30.3%), whereas the rest focused on a single cancer, most commonly breast (24.8%). Most articles (77%) measured physical function following the completion of active cancer treatment with 64% representing the assessment domain. The most commonly used measures of physical function were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Health Survey Questionnaire (29%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (21.5%).

LIMITATIONS

Studies not written in English, study protocols, conference abstracts, and unpublished data were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

This review elucidated significant inconsistencies in the literature regarding language used to define physical function, measurement tools used to characterize function, and the use of those tools across the cancer treatment and survivorship trajectory. The findings suggested that physical function in cancer research is predominantly measured using general health-related quality-of-life tools rather than more precise functional assessment tools. Interdisciplinary and clinician-researcher collaborative efforts should be directed toward a unified definition and assessment of physical function.

Next-Generation Cancer Rehabilitation: A Giant Step Forward for Patient Care

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to review the current state of cancer rehabilitation evidence and practice and delineate an agenda for building the future of cancer rehabilitation care.

FINDINGS

Despite the benefits of cancer rehabilitation interventions and the unmet needs among patients with cancer, very few patients receive these services.

CONCLUSIONS

Interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation should be implemented from diagnosis forward. Building this care involves coordinating efforts in four critical areas: innovating cancer rehabilitation care delivery, expanding the team of providers, creating precision medicine cancer rehabilitation, and demonstrating the value of cancer rehabilitation to drive referrals and reimbursement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Creating next-generation cancer rehabilitation care has the potential to improve the lives of the growing population of cancer survivors.

Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment: A New Emphasis on the Role of Rehabilitation Services

In May 2018, the National Cancer Policy Forum (NCPF) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) released a report, Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment: Proceedings of Workshop. NCPF-published reports have historically played a significant role in driving policy and payment model changes in oncology care, in addition to raising awareness about the needs of individuals with cancer. This 2018 report provides a specific set of recommendations for improving symptom management and rehabilitation that suggest the integration of rehabilitation services at the point of cancer diagnosis and throughout the continuum of cancer care to effectively screen for and manage the anticipated functional morbidity associated with cancer treatment. The specificity of these recommendations is of significant relevance to the physical therapy profession and should encourage bold steps to effectively increase the presence of physical therapists as members of interdisciplinary cancer care teams. The profession must act to implement models of prospective care, develop targeted education and training initiatives to assure the knowledge and skills of our workforce for this complex population, and augment the current evidence base with greater attention to health services research aiming to understand the effectiveness of rehabilitation services in improving costs, utilization, and meaningful functional outcomes.

Factors associated with self-reported falls, balance or walking difficulty in older survivors of breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer: Results from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey linkage

Background

Cancer and its treatment affect body systems that are important in preventing falls and controlling balance/walking. This study examined factors associated with self-reported falls and balance/walking difficulty in the past 12 months in older survivors of four major cancers.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study analyzing population-based data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS). Data from cohorts 9 to 14 (January 2006 to December 2013) were extracted. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥65 years at cancer diagnosis, first MHOS completed during years 1–5 post-cancer diagnosis, first primary breast (n = 2725), colorectal (n = 1646), lung (n = 752), and prostate (n = 4245) cancer, and availability of cancer staging information. Primary outcomes were self-reported falls and balance/walking difficulty in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was constructed for each cancer type to examine independent factors associated with falls and balance/walking difficulty.

Results

In all cancer types, advancing age at cancer diagnosis and dependence in activities of daily living were significant independent factors associated with increased odds of reporting falls and balance/walking difficulty in the past 12 months. Additionally, depression was independently associated with falls and sensory impairment in feet was independently linked to balance/walking difficulty in all cancer types. Other independent factors of falls and balance/walking difficulty varied across cancer types. In breast cancer only, localized or regional cancer stage was significantly associated with increased odds of reporting falls and balance/walking difficulty, whereas treatment with radiation decreased the odds of falling. No association between falls and balance/walking difficulty with time since cancer diagnosis, cancer stage, or cancer treatment was found in colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer.

Conclusion

There exists some heterogeneity in factors associated with self-reported falls and balance/walking difficulty between different cancer types. Future research is necessary to ascertain factors predictive of falls and balance/walking difficulty in older cancer survivors, particularly factors related to cancer diagnosis and treatment.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Landscape of Cancer Rehabilitation Research (1992-2016)

Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated as great attention has focused on improving survivorship care. Recent expert consensus has attempted to prioritize research needs and suggests greater focus on studying physical functioning of survivors. However, no analysis of the publication landscape has substantiated these proposed needs. This manuscript provides an analysis of PubMed indexed articles related to cancer rehabilitation published between 1992 and 2017. A total of 22 171 publications were analyzed using machine learning and text analysis to assess publication metrics, topic areas of emphasis, and their interrelationships through topic similarity networks. Publications have increased at a rate of 136 articles per year. Approximately 10% of publications were funded by the National Institutes of Health institutes and centers, with the National Cancer Institute being the most prominent funder. The greatest volume and rate of publication increase were in the topics of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies and Psychological Interventions, followed by Depression and Exercise Therapy. Four research topic similarity networks were identified and provide insight on areas of robust publication and notable deficits. Findings suggest that publication emphasis has strongly supported cognitive, behavioral, and psychological therapies; however, studies of functional morbidity and physical rehabilitation research are lacking. Three areas of publication deficits are noted: research on populations outside of breast, prostate, and lung cancers; methods for integrating physical rehabilitation services with cancer care, specifically regarding functional screening and assessment; and physical rehabilitation interventions. These deficits align with the needs identified by expert consensus and support the supposition that future research should emphasize a focus on physical rehabilitation.