This research highlights the need for a standardised approach to measurement of self-reported cognitive symptoms in cancer patients.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure PROs; they are usually validated questionnaires patients complete by self-assessing their health status. Whilst the benefits of using PROs and PROMs to guide real-time patient care are well established, they have not been adopted by many oncology institutions worldwide. This literature review aimed to examine the barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs in routine oncology care. Methods: A literature search was conducted across EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases. Studies detailing barriers to routine PRO use for real-time patient care were included; those focusing on PRO collection in the research setting were excluded. Results: Of 1165 records captured, 14 studies informed this review. At the patient level, patient time, incapacity and difficulty using electronic devices to complete PROMs were prominent barriers. At the health professional level, major barriers included health professionals' lack of time and knowledge to meaningfully interpret and integrate PRO data into their clinical practice and the inability for PRO data to be acted upon. Prominent barriers at the service level included difficulties integrating PROs and PROMs into clinical workflows and inadequate information technology (IT) infrastructures for easy PRO collection. Conclusion: This review has outlined potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice.

No abstract

Issue addressed Digital health technologies can potentially reduce health disparities in cancer care. However, the benefits of digital health technology depend partly on users’ digital health literacy, that is, “capabilities and resources required for individuals to use and benefit from digital health resources,” which combines health and digital literacy. We examined issues for digital health technology implementation in cancer care regarding digital health literacy, via stakeholder consultation. Methods Consumers, health care professionals, researchers, developers, nongovernment and government/policy stakeholders (N = 51) participated in focus groups/interviews discussing barriers, enablers, needs and opportunities for digital health implementation in cancer care. Researchers applied framework analysis to identify themes of digital health literacy in the context of disparity and inclusion. Results Limited digital and traditional health literacy were identified as barriers to digital technology engagement, with a range of difficulties identified for older, younger and socio‐economically or geographically disadvantaged groups. Digital health technology was a potential enabler of health care access and literacy, affording opportunities to increase reach and engagement. Education combined with targeted design and implementation were identified means of addressing health and digital literacy to effectively implement digital health in cancer care. Conclusions Implementing digital health in cancer care must address the variability of digital health literacy in recipients, including groups living with disadvantage and older and younger people, in order to be effective. So what? If cancer outcome disparity is to be reduced via digital health technologies, they must be implemented strategically to address digital health literacy needs. Health policy should reflect this approach.

No abstract

Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment ("GP-LCS interval"), and diagnosis to treatment ("treatment interval"). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care.We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP-LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions.Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP-LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay.Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of care.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

No abstract