Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approaches are increasingly used in lung cancer surgery, but little is known about their impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQL). This prospective study measured recovery and HRQL in the year after VATS for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and explored the feasibility of HRQL data collection in patients undergoing VATS or open lung resection.Patients and MethodsConsecutive patients referred for surgical assessment (VATS or open surgery) for proven/suspected NSCLC completed HRQL and fatigue assessments before and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Mean HRQL scores were calculated for patients who underwent VATS (segmental, wedge or lobectomy resection). Paired t-tests compared mean HRQL between baseline and expected worst (1 month), early (3 months) and longer-term (12 months) recovery time points.ResultsA total of 92 patients received VATS, and 18 open surgery. Questionnaire response rates were high (pre-surgery 96–100%; follow-up 67–85%). Pre-surgery, VATS patients reported mostly high (good) functional health scores [(European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) EORTC function scores > 80] and low (mild) symptom scores (EORTC symptom scores < 20). One-month post-surgery, patients reported clinically and statistically significant deterioration in overall health and physical, role and social function (19–36 points), and increased fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss and constipation [EORTC 12–26; multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20) 3–5]. HRQL had not fully recovered 12 months post-surgery, with reduced physical, role and social function (10–14) and persistent fatigue and dyspnoea (EORTC 12–22; MFI-20 2.7–3.2).ConclusionsLung resection has a considerable detrimental impact on patients’ HRQL that is not fully resolved 12 months post-surgery, despite a VATS approach.Graphic Abstract

Background Patients undergoing major cancer surgery frequently require post-acute care for complications and adverse effects. Enhanced recovery after surgery programmes mean that patients are increasingly discharged home earlier. Symptom/complication detection post-discharge is sub-optimal. Systematic patient monitoring post-discharge following surgery may be optimally achieved through routine electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data capture. ePRO systems that employ clinical algorithms to guide management of patients and automatically alert clinicians of clinically-concerning symptoms can improve patient outcomes and decrease hospital admissions. ePRO systems that provide individually-tailored self-management advice and integrate live ePRO data into electronic health records (EHR) may also advance personalised health and patient-centred care. This study aims to develop a hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system to improve detection and management of complications post-discharge following cancer-related surgery. Methods The ePRO system was developed in two phases: (1) Development of a web-based ePRO symptom-report from validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, clinical opinion and patient interviews, followed by hospital EHR integration; (2) Development of clinical algorithms triggering symptom severity-dependent patient advice and clinician alerts from: (i) prospectively-collected patient-completed ePRO symptom-report data; (ii) stakeholder meetings; (iii) patient interviews. Patient advice was developed from: (i) clinician-patient telephone consultations and patient interviews; (ii) review of hospital patient information leaflets (PIL) and patient support websites. Results Phase 1, including interviews with 18 patients, identified 35 symptom-report items. In phase 2, 130/300 (43%) screened patients were eligible. 61 (47%) consented to participate and 59 (97%) provided 444 complete self-reports. Stakeholder meetings (9 clinicians, 1 patient/public representative) and patient interviews ( n  = 66) refined advice/alert accuracy. 15 telephone consultations, 7 patient interviews and review of 28 PILs and 3 patient support websites identified 4 themes to inform self-management advice. Comparisons between ePRO symptom-report data, telephone consultations and clinical events/outcomes ( n  = 27 patients) further refined clinical algorithms. Conclusions A hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system that alerts clinicians and provides patient self-management advice has been developed to improve the detection and management of problems and complications after discharge following surgery. An ongoing pilot study will inform a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the ePRO system compared to usual care.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard \"core\" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Background Consistent outcome assessment in surgical research, from early phase studies (during introduction and refinement of new procedures) to late phase studies (to establish comparative effectiveness) needs improvement to ensure efficient and safe surgical care. This study explored the potential continuity of outcome domain assessment throughout the evaluation lifecycle of surgical interventions. Methods Core outcome sets (COS) for late phase studies of surgical interventions were identified through COMET database searches. Core outcomes/outcome domains were extracted and mapped to core domains of a COS developed specifically for evaluating surgical innovation (COHESIVE COS). Outcomes/domains were categorised as “definite match” (clear similarity), “possible match” (potential similarity) and “no match” (no similarity) COHESIVE domain based on similarity in wording or meaning. Results A total of 54 COS studies were included, yielding 573 core outcomes/domains. Most late phase core outcomes/domains ( N  = 519, 91%) showed clear or possible similarity. All late phase COS studies recommended measurement of COHESIVE domains ‘Intended benefits’ and ‘Expected and unexpected disadvantages’. Some late phase outcomes/domains also showed similarity with early phase COHESIVE domains, including ‘Problems with the device working’, ‘Patients’ experience’ and ‘Operators’/surgeons’ experience’. A minority of late phase outcomes/domains showed no similarity with COHESIVE domains ( n  = 54, 9%). Conclusion High similarity between outcome domains recommended in early and late phase evaluations of surgical interventions demonstrates continuity of outcome domain assessment throughout the surgical innovation lifecycle is possible. Harmonising outcome measurement throughout the research pathway can streamline evaluation, enhancing access to beneficial treatment and improving early detection of harms.

Core outcome set (COS) development often begins with a systematic review to identify outcomes. Reviews frequently show heterogeneity in numbers of outcomes reported across trials. Contributing to this is a lack of a uniform definition for an outcome. This study proposes a first working definition for a unique trial outcome to support reporting a quantitative assessment of outcome reporting heterogeneity (ORH). Eligible COS literature (development papers, protocols, and reviews) were identified using the COMET database, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Outcome numbers, definitions, timing, and grouping methodology were examined. One hundred and thirty two studies were included. 82 (88.1%) studies (excluding protocols) reported a total number of unique outcomes (median, 82; range, 12-5776; IQR, 261). Timing of assessment was reported in 32 (31.4%) studies. Methods to group similar outcomes were reported in 8 (7.8%) articles. No study defined how outcomes were agreed as different and how final numbers of unique outcomes were determined. It is proposed that a unique outcome requires original meaning and context. Thus ORH is suggested to be the reporting of multiple unique outcomes across trials related to one health care condition. This review identified inconsistencies in how authors define, extract, group, and count trial outcomes. Further work is needed to refine our proposed definitions to optimize COS development and allow a quantifiable measure of ORH.

Background Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders’ opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to ‘context effects’, where prior questions determine an item’s meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1–9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7–9 considered ‘essential’). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants’ responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. Results In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6–48.9%, P  = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5–40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0–23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients ( P  = 0.025) but not professionals ( P  = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). Conclusions In the development of a COS, participants’ ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. Trial registration The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable.

Background Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding. Methods Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above. Results DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained. Conclusions The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators’ experience of surgical innovation. There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators’ experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group. Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed ‘psychological’ experiences and ‘usability’. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated ‘sufficient’ (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or ‘indeterminate’ (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument. The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators’ experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required. [Display omitted] •This study identifies, appraises, and recommends a standard measure to assess operators' experience in studies of surgical innovation.•Robust methodology was applied.•Supplemental validation used semistructured interviews with multinational and multidisciplinary professionals.•The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended because it was found to be most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible.•Routine use of a validated, standard measure to assess operators' experience supports efficient and transparent evaluation of complex interventions involving surgical innovation.

Background: There is evidence of associations between insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), IGF-II, insulin-like binding protein-2 (IGFBP-2), IGFBP-3, and prostate cancer risk. This study examines the association between dietary factors associated with prostate cancer and serum levels of these peptides. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of self-reported 12-month dietary intake with serum IGF and IGFBP levels was performed using data from 1,798 subjects screened negative for prostate cancer as part of a UK multicenter trial comparing treatments for this condition. Multivariable linear regression models tested associations of diet with IGFs and IGFBPs. Results: For a one standard deviation (SD) increase in dairy product and dairy protein intake, IGF-I increased by 5.28 ng/mL (95 % confidence interval: 2.64, 7.92 ng/mL) and 6.02 ng/mL (3.34, 8.71 ng/mL), respectively. A 25 % increase in calcium and selenium intake was associated with an increase in IGF-I of 5.92 ng/mL (3.77, 8.07 ng/mL) and 2.61 ng/mL (1.10, 4.13 ng/mL), respectively. A one SD increase in animal protein was associated with a decrease in IGFBP-2 of 6.20 % (-8.91, -3.41 %), and there was some evidence of an inverse association with dairy protein and calcium. There was no evidence of any dietary associations with IGFBP-3 or IGF-II. Conclusions: Diet is associated with IGF-I and IGFBP-2 levels in men in the UK, and these peptides warrant further investigation as part of randomized trials of dietary interventions to reduce the risk or progression of prostate cancer. There is no evidence that IGF-II or IGFBP-3 are mediators of dietary associations with prostate cancer.

ObjectiveTo explore patient and healthcare professional perceptions about the acceptability and impact of a large-scale system for automated, real-time monitoring and feedback of shared decision-making (SDM) that has been integrated into surgical care pathways.DesignQualitative, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and healthcare professionals between June and November 2021. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive approaches.SettingLarge-scale monitoring of SDM has been integrated in NHS surgical care across two large UK National Health Service Trusts.ParticipantsAdult surgical patients (N=18, 56% female), following use of an SDM real-time monitoring and feedback system, and healthcare professionals (N=14, 36% female) involved in their surgical care. Patient recruitment was conducted through hospital research nurses and professionals by direct approach from the study team to sample individuals purposively from seven surgical specialties (general, vascular, urology, orthopaedics, breast, gynaecology and urgent cardiac).Results10 themes were identified within three areas of exploration that described factors underpinning: (1) the acceptability of large-scale automated, real-time monitoring of SDM experiences, (2) the acceptability of real-time feedback and addressing SDM deficiencies and (3) the impact of real-time monitoring and feedback. There was general support for real-time monitoring and feedback because of its perceived ability to efficiently address deficiencies in surgical patients’ SDM experience at scale, and its perceived benefits to patients, surgeons and the wider organisation. Factors potentially influencing acceptability of large-scale automated, real-time monitoring and feedback were identified for both stakeholder groups, for example, influence of survey timing on patient-reported SDM scores, disease-specific risks, patients’ dissatisfaction with hospital processes. Factors particularly important for patients included concerns over digital exclusion exacerbated by electronic real-time monitoring. Factors unique to professionals included the need for detailed, qualitative feedback of SDM to contextualise patient-reported SDM scores.ConclusionsThis study explored factors influencing the acceptability of automated, real-time monitoring and feedback of patients’ experiences of SDM integrated into surgical practice, at scale among key stakeholders. Findings will be used to guide refinement and implementation of SDM monitoring and feedback prior to formal development, evaluation and implementation of an SDM intervention in the NHS.Trial registration numberISRCTN17951423.The original protocoldoi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155.