BackgroundLongitudinal qualitative methods are becoming increasingly used in the health service research, but the method and challenges particular to health care settings are not well described in the literature.We reflect on the strategies used in a longitudinal qualitative study to explore the experience of symptoms in cancer patients and their carers, following participants from diagnosis for twelve months; we highlight ethical, practical, theoretical and methodological issues that need to be considered and addressed from the outset of a longitudinal qualitative study.ResultsKey considerations in undertaking longitudinal qualitative projects in health research, include the use of theory, utilizing multiple methods of analysis and giving consideration to the practical and ethical issues at an early stage. These can include issues of time and timing; data collection processes; changing the topic guide over time; recruitment considerations; retention of staff; issues around confidentiality; effects of project on staff and patients, and analyzing data within and across time.ConclusionsAs longitudinal qualitative methods are becoming increasingly used in health services research, the methodological and practical challenges particular to health care settings need more robust approaches and conceptual improvement. We provide recommendations for the use of such designs. We have a particular focus on cancer patients, so this paper will have particular relevance for researchers interested in chronic and life limiting conditions.

PurposeCancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a frequent and distressing symptom experienced after cancer treatment. RESTORE is the first web-based resource designed to enhance self-efficacy to manage CRF following curative-intent treatment. The aim of this study is to test the proof of concept and inform the design of an effectiveness trial.MethodsA multi-centre parallel-group two-armed (1:1) exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) with qualitative process evaluation was employed in the study. Participants (≥18 years; ≤5 years post treatment with moderate to severe fatigue) were recruited and randomly assigned to RESTORE or a leaflet. Feasibility and acceptability were measured by recruitment, attrition, intervention adherence, completion of outcome measures and process evaluation. Change in self-efficacy to manage CRF was also explored. Outcome measures were completed at baseline (T0), 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2). Data were analysed using mixed-effects linear regression and directed content analysis.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-three people participated in the trial and 19 in the process evaluation. The intervention was feasible (39 % of eligible patients consented) and acceptable (attrition rate 36 %). There was evidence of higher fatigue self-efficacy at T1 in the intervention group vs comparator (mean difference 0.51 [−0.08 to 1.11]), though the difference in groups decreased by 12 weeks. Time since diagnosis influenced perceived usefulness of the intervention. Modifications were suggested.ConclusionProof of concept was achieved. The RESTORE intervention should be subject to a definitive trial with some adjustments. Provision of an effective supportive resource would empower cancer survivors to manage CRF after treatment completion.Trial registrationISRCTN67521059

PurposeCancer survivors are increasingly expected to manage the consequences of cancer and its treatment for themselves. There is evidence that self-efficacy is important for successful self-management and that this can be enhanced with support. The purpose of this study was to assess self-efficacy to manage problems in the year following primary treatment.MethodsThis cross-sectional online survey included cancer survivors who had completed their treatment within the past 12 months. Self-efficacy was assessed and variables expected to be associated with self-efficacy were measured using validated scales including quality of life, well-being, illness perceptions, depression and social support.ResultsOne hundred eighty-two respondents (mean age 50; 81 % female) completed the survey. They had been treated for a range of cancers; most commonly breast (45 %). Self-efficacy scores varied between individuals and according to the illness-related task to be managed. Respondents were least confident in managing fatigue and most confident in accessing information about their cancer. Individuals most likely to report low self-efficacy were women, those experiencing higher levels of pain and/or depression, lower well-being scores, lower socio-economic status, low levels of social support, or a more negative perception of cancer.ConclusionsSelf-efficacy to self-manage problems faced as a consequence of cancer and its treatment can vary widely in the year following treatment. Fatigue may be particularly difficult to manage.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsVariations in self-efficacy highlight the importance of assessing specific problems faced and people’s confidence to manage them in order to tailor appropriate self-management support.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesTo understand successful strategies used by people to cope well when living with advanced cancer; to explore how professionals can support effective coping strategies; to understand how to support development of effective coping strategies for patients and family carers.DesignQualitative serial (4–12 week intervals) interview study with people with advanced cancer and their informal carers followed by focus groups. The iterative design had a novel focus on positive coping strategies. Interview analysis focused on patients and carers as individuals and pairs, exploring multiple dimensions of their coping experiences. Focus group analysis explored strategies for intervention development.Participants26 people with advanced (stage 3–4) breast, prostate, lung or colorectal cancer, or in receipt of palliative care, and 24 paired nominated informal/family carers.SettingParticipants recruited through outpatient clinics at two tertiary cancer centres in Merseyside and Manchester, UK, between June 2012 and July 2013.Results45 patient and 41 carer interviews were conducted plus 4 focus groups (16 participants). People with advanced cancer and their informal/family carers develop coping strategies which enable effective management of psychological wellbeing. People draw from pre-diagnosis coping strategies, but these develop through responding to the experience of living with advanced cancer. Strategies include being realistic, indulgence, support, and learning from others, which enabled participants to regain a sense of wellbeing after emotional challenge. Learning from peers emerged as particularly important in promoting psychological wellbeing through the development of effective ‘everyday’, non-clinical coping strategies.ConclusionsOur findings challenge current models of providing psychological support for those with advanced cancer which focus on professional intervention. It is important to recognise, enable and support peoples’ own resources and coping strategies. Peer support may have potential, and could be a patient-centred, cost effective way of managing the needs of a growing population of those living with advanced cancer.

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. Methods We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. Results Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2–19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0–11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5–8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. Conclusions PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

This meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution due to the potential for bias in the included studies: observed benefit may be due to systematic differences in outcomes rather than intervention effects. Some benefit was noted from intensive follow-up strategies. More robust data, in the form of randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings as the review is based primarily on observational studies. Future research should also include patient-centered outcomes to investigate the impact of follow-up regimes on living with lung cancer and psychosocial well-being.