Aim The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of self‐management interventions for older adults with cancer and to determine the effective components of said interventions. Methods We conducted a systematic review of self‐management interventions for older adults (65+) with cancer guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis statement. We conducted an exhaustive search of the following databases: Ageline, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. We assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Down & Black for quasi‐experimental studies, with data synthesized in a narrative and tabular format. Results Sixteen thousand nine hundred and eight‐five titles and abstracts were screened, subsequently 452 full‐text papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers, of which 13 full‐text papers were included in the final review. All self‐management interventions included in this review measured Quality of Life; other outcomes included mood, self‐care activity, supportive care needs, self‐advocacy, pain intensity, and analgesic intake; only one intervention measured frailty. Effective interventions were delivered by a multidisciplinary teams (n = 4), nurses (n = 3), and mental health professionals (n = 1). Self‐management core skills most commonly targeted included: problem solving; behavioural self‐monitoring and tailoring; and settings goals and action planning. Conclusions Global calls to action argue for increased emphasize on self‐management but presently, few interventions exist that explicitly target the self‐management needs of older adults with cancer. Future work should focus on explicit pathways to support older adults and their caregivers to prepare for and engage in cancer self‐management processes and behaviours.

PURPOSE American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.

12011 Background: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is recommended by ASCO for older adults with cancer undergoing chemotherapy to identify issues that can interfere with treatment delivery and optimize functional status and quality of life. However, few randomized controlled trials have been completed so far. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of CGA on improving quality of life for older adults receiving cancer treatment. Methods: Eligible patients were aged 70+, diagnosed with a solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma, referred for first/second line chemotherapy, speaking English/French, and with an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group Performance Status 0–2. The CGA was done by a nurse and geriatrician followed by monthly phone calls by the study nurse for 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the intervention (CGA plus follow-up by geriatric trained team in addition to usual oncology care) or usual care alone. All participants received a monthly healthy aging booklet for attention control. Randomization was stratified by center and treatment intent (curative/adjuvant versus palliative). Our primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 global health scale (items 29 and 30). Secondary outcomes include functional status (Instrumental Activities of Daily Living). Outcome data collection was completed monthly for the first 6 months, then at 9 and 12 months. For the primary outcome we used a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 0, 3, and 6 months). The last data collection took place March 8 2021. Results: From May 2017 to March 2020, 351 participants from 8 hospitals across Canada were enrolled. All patients were seen on or after day 1 of treatment for the intervention per patient request. Patient characteristics at baseline were similar in both arms. The average age was 75.7 (SD = 4.8), 60.4% was male and 54.3% had treatment with palliative intent. Change in HRQOL scores did not differ by arm (p =.80). Neither group exceeded the MCID of 10 points. There was also no difference in IADL between the groups (p = 0.82). Conclusion: CGA was not effective in improving quality of life for older adults receiving cancer treatment in this study. CGA may need to be performed prior to treatment initiation to achieve benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03154671.

Objectives New models for the workforce are required in long-term care (LTC) homes, as was made evident during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Nurse Practitioner (NP)-led models of care represent an effective solution. This study explored NPs’ roles in supporting LTC homes as changes in directives, policies, and recommendations related to COVID-19 were introduced. Design Qualitative exploratory study. Context Thirteen NPs working in LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted in March/April 2021. A five-step inductive thematic analysis was applied. Findings Analysis generated four themes: leading the COVID-19 vaccine rollout; promoting staff wellbeing related to COVID-19 fatigue; addressing complexities of new admissions; and negotiating evolving collaborative relationships. Conclusions Nurse practitioners were instrumental in supporting LTC homes through COVID-19 regulatory changes producing unintended consequences. The NPs’ leadership in transforming care is equally essential in LTC homes as in other established healthcare settings, such as primary and acute care.