ObjectivesOver two million people in the UK are living with and beyond cancer. A third report diminished quality of life.DesignA review of published systematic reviews to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors.Data sourcesDatabases searched until May 2017 included PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO.Study selectionPublished systematic reviews of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people living with and beyond cancer were included; included reviews targeted patients aged over 18. All participants had already received a cancer diagnosis. Interventions located in any healthcare setting, home or online were included. Reviews of alternative therapies or those non-English reports were excluded. Two researchers independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full text of papers, and independently extracted the data.OutcomesThe primary outcome of interest was any measure of global (overall) quality of life.Analytical methodsQuality assessment assessing methdological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and narrative synthesis, evaluating effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions and their components.ResultsOf 14 430 unique titles, 21 were included in the review of reviews. There was little overlap in the primary papers across these reviews. Thirteen reviews covered mixed tumour groups, seven focused on breast cancer and one focused on prostate cancer. Face-to-face interventions were often combined with online, telephone and paper-based reading materials. Interventions included physical, psychological or behavioural, multidimensional rehabilitation and online approaches. Yoga specifically, physical exercise more generally, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programmes showed benefit in terms of quality of life.ConclusionsExercise-based interventions were effective in the short (less than 3–8 months) and long term. CBT and MBSR also showed benefits, especially in the short term. The evidence for multidisciplinary, online and educational interventions was equivocal.

Background and aimClinical centres have seen an increase in tic-like movements during the COVID-19 pandemic. A series of children and adolescents are described.MethodsA retrospective chart review of 34 consecutive paediatric patients presenting with sudden onset tic-like movements, seen over 6 months.Results94% of patients were female, with an average age of sudden onset or increase of tic-like movements of 13.7 years. 44% had a previous diagnosis of tics, and 47% initially presented to an emergency department. Comorbid psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders were reported in 91% with 68% reporting anxiety.ConclusionWe highlight a dramatic presentation of sudden onset functional tic-like movements in predominantly female adolescents to help inform identification and management. There is need to research the neurobiological underpinnings and environmental exacerbating factors leading to these presentations and to explore effective therapeutic strategies.

Background and purpose: Between 2019 and 2022, there was a marked rise in adolescents/young adults seeking urgent help for functional tic-like behaviours (FTLBs). Given the global scale of this phenomenon, we aimed to pool cases from different institutions in an international registry to better characterize this spectrum and facilitate future longitudinal observation.Methods: An international collaborative group from 10 tertiary referral centres for tic disorders collected retrospective data on FTLB patients who sought specialists' attention | 335

Purpose The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate measure of quality of life (QoL) for patients living with and beyond cancer. Methods One hundred eighty-two people attending cancer clinics in Central London at various stages post-treatment, completed a series of QoL measures: FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30 , IOCv2 (positive and negative subscales) and WEMWBS, a wellbeing measure. These measures were chosen as the commonest measures used in previous research. Correlation tests were used to assess the association between scales. Participants were also asked about pertinence and ease of completion. Results There was a significant positive correlation between the four domain scores of the two health-related QoL measures (.32 ≤ r ≤ .72, P < .001), and a significant large negative correlation between these and the negative IOCv2 subscale scores (− .39 ≤ r ≤ − .63, P < .001). There was a significant moderate positive correlation between positive IOCv2 subscale and WEMWBS scores (r = .35, P < .001). However, neither the FACT-G nor the EORTC showed any significant correlation with the positive IOCv2 subscale. Participants rated all measures similarly with regards to pertinence and ease of use. Conclusion There was little to choose between FACT-G, EORTC, and the negative IOC scales, any of which may be used to measure QoL. However, the two IOCv2 subscales capture unique aspects of QoL compared to the other measures. The IOCv2 can be used to identify those cancer survivors who would benefit from interventions to improve their QoL and to target specific needs thereby providing more holistic and personalised care beyond cancer treatment.

BackgroundThe randomised control trial (RCT) is the most rigorous method of evaluating interventions. Recruitment is often slower and more challenging than expected. The aim of the current paper is to understand the feasibility of recruitment within the NHS and the barriers and motivators to recruitment from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).MethodsNHS HCPs were surveyed to establish their willingness to participate. Twenty HCPs were interviewed to establish barriers and motivators to recruitment. Eleven patients were interviewed to understand their willingness to participate. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsHCP interviews identified key barriers to recruitment: practical barriers included workload and time; clinical barriers included terminology and concern that the trial implied criticism of their current practice; and patient barriers included gender and cultural factors. Motivators to recruitment included: regular communication between research and clinical teams; feedback on findings; and patient and individual benefits for clinicians. Patient interviews suggested that participation in a trial of a psychosocial intervention would strengthen existing coping skills and develop mechanisms for those who were struggling.ConclusionsSurvey results demonstrated that recruitment to an RCT of a psychosocial intervention for people living with and beyond cancer would be feasible within the NHS if specific barriers are addressed. From a clinician point of view, barriers should be addressed to improve recruitment, particularly training and education of clinicians and clear communication. From a patient perspective, interventions and RCT should be tailored to target those not routinely represented in RCTs.