Geriatric Oncology in the Instagram Era: Feasibility and Acceptability Randomised Controlled Trial on Adopting PhotoVoice to Enable Empowerment, Patient-Centred Care, and Shared Decision Making—Study Protocol
Abstract
:1. Background
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Population and Setting
3. Procedure
3.1. Screening
3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
3.3. Randomisation
3.4. Intervention (PhotoVoice Optimised ESC)
- A photograph depicting an aspect of their identity, career, workplace, or life role, emphasising their personal journey.
- A photograph representing something important to the patient, such as a pet or family member.
- A photograph showcasing the patient’s home environment.
- A photograph illustrating their means of transportation to appointments.
3.5. Usual Care (ESC)
3.6. Recruitment
3.7. Data Collection and Analysis
Supplementary Sub-Study: Quality Improvement Audit of ESC Uptake
4. Expected Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Clinician Survey
- 1.
- Please tell us about yourself:
- 1.1.
- Discipline/Specialty:
- Allied health
- Medical (physician, GP)
- Nursing
- Non-clinical supportive service
- 1.2.
- Years in practice: _________________________________
- 1.3.
- Do you have experience in cancer care: Yes/No
- If yes, how many years of experience? ________
- 2.
- What did you like about the ESC initiative? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 3.
- What did you dislike about the ESC initiative? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 4.
- In thinking about the multidisciplinary team meetings:
- 4.1.
- How many meetings did you attend Between February and May 2021 (NB. date will be adjusted depending on when meetings formally start)? ____________________
- 4.2.
- Please rate the MDT meetings on the following
- 4.2.1.
- Time of the meeting
- Suitable
- Unsuitable
- Preferred a different time (specify): _____________________
- Comments:
- ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 4.2.2.
- Frequency of the meeting
- Too long
- Too short
- Just right
- 4.2.3.
- Length of the meeting
- Too long
- Too short
- Just right
- 4.2.4.
- In thinking about the meetings, you attended in general, what did you think of content and discussion?
- too much information
- too little information
- just right
- Comments:
- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 4.3.
- How useful did you find the ESC weekly MDT meetings when you were making your decision about providing personalised patient care and support?
- Unhelpful
- Fair
- Good
- Excellent
- Comments:
- ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 5.
- In thinking about PhotoVoice and the discussions based on reports generated from this exercise, how useful did you find the PhotoVoice reports when you were making your decision about providing personalised patient care and support?
- Unhelpful
- Fair
- Good
- Excellent
- 5.1.
- To what extent did PhotoVoice help, if at all, clarify understanding the potential strengths and challenges within the older person’s environment?
- Unhelpful
- Fair
- Good
- Excellent
- 5.2.
- PhotoVoice was intended to provide a deeper exploration and appreciation for the patient’s priorities and response to their treatment decisions. How helpful do you think PhotoVoice was in achieving this intent?
- Unhelpful
- Fair
- Good
- Excellent
- 6.
- What did you like about PhotoVoice?
- ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 7.
- What did you dislike about PhotoVoice?
- ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 8.
- Do you have any suggestions to improve ESC, including Photovoice or any other suggestions?
- ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix B. SHOWeD Patient Participant Interview Schedule
Appendix C. Patient Survey
Satisfaction with Overall Communication about Overall Health | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
1. Your cancer doctor encouraged you to ask questions. | |||||
2. Your cancer doctor was willing to discuss any topic of importance to you. | |||||
3. Your cancer doctor gave you information you could understand. | |||||
4. Your cancer doctor helped you to feel comfortable discussing what to expect in the future. | |||||
5. You feel understood by your cancer doctor. |
Satisfaction with Communication about Other Medical Issues and Aging Concerns | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
1. Your cancer doctor encouraged you to ask questions about your other medical issues in addition to the cancer and/or any health concerns that could be from aging. | |||||
2. Your cancer doctor was willing to discuss your other medical issues in addition to the cancer and/or any health concerns that could be from aging. | |||||
3. Your cancer doctor gave you information you could understand about your other medical issues in addition to the cancer and/or any health concerns that could be from aging. | |||||
4. Your cancer doctor helped you to feel comfortable discussing how cancer treatment could affect your other medical issues in addition to the cancer and/or any health concerns that could be from aging. | |||||
5. You feel your cancer doctor understood your overall health, including your other medical issues in addition to the cancer and/or any health concerns that could be from aging. | |||||
6. I understand why my cancer doctor suggested my treatment plan because he/she talked with me about my medical tests and procedures and how it led to my current diagnosis. | |||||
7. You feel your cancer doctor understood you as a person, including values and beliefs important to you. |
Appendix D. Audit Checklist
- Patient’s Age: ________
- Gender: ☐Male ☐Female ☐Other
- ATSI: ☐Yes ☐No
- Diagnosis: _________________________________________________
- Treatment regimen: _________________________________________
Item | Yes/No | Comments |
G8 | ☐Yes ☐No | Score if yes: |
DT | ☐Yes ☐No | |
eRFA | ☐Yes ☐No | |
TUG | ☐Yes ☐No | |
Mini-Cog | ☐Yes ☐No | |
Allied health referral(s) | ☐Yes ☐No | |
If yes for above, specify | ||
Other supportive care services | ☐Yes ☐No | |
If yes for above, specify |
References
- O’Hanlon, S.; O’Donovan, A.; Cree, A. Geriatric Oncology: Assessing the Needs of Older People with Cancer. Br. J. Hosp. Med. 2019, 80, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamaker, M.E.; Wildes, T.M.; Rostoft, S. Time to Stop Saying Geriatric Assessment Is Too Time Consuming. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 2871–2874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mohile, S.G.; Dale, W.; Somerfield, M.R.; Schonberg, M.A.; Boyd, C.M.; Burhenn, P.S.; Canin, B.; Cohen, H.J.; Holmes, H.M.; Hopkins, J.O.; et al. Practical Assessment and Management of Vulnerabilities in Older Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: Asco Guideline for Geriatric Oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 2326–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Soto-Perez-De-Celis, E.; Hurria, A. Geriatric Assessment and Tools for Predicting Treatment Toxicity in Older Adults with Cancer. Cancer J. 2017, 23, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taberna, M.; Gil Moncayo, F.; Jané-Salas, E.; Antonio, M.; Arribas, L.; Vilajosana, E.; Torres, E.P.; Mesía, R. The Multidisciplinary Team (Mdt) Approach and Quality of Care. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Decoster, L.; Van Puyvelde, K.; Mohile, S.; Wedding, U.; Basso, U.; Colloca, G.; Rostoft, S.; Overcash, J.; Wildiers, H.; Steer, C.; et al. Screening Tools for Multidimensional Health Problems Warranting a Geriatric Assessment in Older Cancer Patients: An Update on Siog Recommendations. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.; Goldstein, N.E.; Dharmarajan, K.V. Managing an Older Adult with Cancer: Considerations for Radiation Oncologists. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 1695101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Festen, S.; Kok, M.; Hopstaken, J.S.; van der Wal-Huisman, H.; van der Leest, A.; Reyners, A.K.; de Bock, G.H.; de Graeff, P.; van Leeuwen, B.L. How to Incorporate Geriatric Assessment in Clinical Decision-Making for Older Patients with Cancer. An Implementation Study. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2019, 10, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerard, E.J.; Nightingale, G.; Bellizzi, K.; Burhenn, P.; Rosko, A.; Artz, A.S.; Korc-Grodzicki, B.; Canin, B.; Dale, W.; Ferrell, B. Survivorship Care for Older Adults with Cancer: U13 Conference Report. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2016, 7, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mohile, S.G.; Epstein, R.M.; Hurria, A.; Heckler, C.E.; Canin, B.; Culakova, E.; Duberstein, P.; Gilmore, N.; Xu, H.; Plumb, S.; et al. Communication with Older Patients with Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soo, W.K.; King, M.T.; Pope, A.; Parente, P.; Dārziņš, P.; Davis, I.D. Integrated Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Effectiveness (Integerate) in Older People with Cancer Starting Systemic Anticancer Treatment in Australia: A Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Health Longev. 2022, 3, e617–e627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karnakis, T.; Gattás-Vernaglia, I.F.; Saraiva, M.D.; Gil-Junior, L.A.; Kanaji, A.L.; Jacob-Filho, W. The Geriatrician’s Perspective on Practical Aspects of the Multidisciplinary Care of Older Adults with Cancer. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2016, 7, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proserpio, T.; Ferrari, A.; Veneroni, L.; Arice, C.; Massimino, M.; Clerici, C.A. Cooperation between in-Hospital Psychological Support and Pastoral Care Providers: Obstacles and Opportunities for a Modern Approach. Tumori J. 2018, 104, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wildiers, H.; Heeren, P.; Puts, M.; Topinkova, E.; Janssen-Heijnen, M.L.; Extermann, M.; Falandry, C.; Artz, A.; Brain, E.; Colloca, G.; et al. International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus on Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients with Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 2595–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malik, U.; Alam, Z.; Loucks, A.; Jin, R.; Yokom, D.; Watt, S.; Berger, A.; Romanovsky, L.; Puts, M.; Alibhai, S.M.H. Downstream Consequences of Abnormal Cognitive Screening in Older Adults Seen Pretreatment in a Geriatric Oncology Clinic. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2020, 11, 784–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steer, C.B. Supportive Care in Older Adults with Cancer—An Update of Research in 2015. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2016, 7, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Walree, I.C.; Vondeling, A.M.; Vink, G.R.; van Huis-Tanja, L.H.; Emmelot-Vonk, M.H.; Bellera, C.; Soubeyran, P.; Hamaker, M.E. Development of a Self-Reported Version of the G8 Screening Tool. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2019, 10, 926–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenis, C.; Decoster, L.; Flamaing, J.; Debruyne, P.; De Groof, I.; Focan, C.; Cornélis, F.; Verschaeve, V.; Bachmann, C.; Bron, D.; et al. Adherence to Geriatric Assessment-Based Recommendations in Older Patients with Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study in Belgium. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 1987–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Somasundar, P.; Mourey, L.; Lozza, L.; Maggi, S.; Stepney, R. Advances in Geriatric Oncology: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Tumori J. 2018, 104, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridges, J.; Hughes, J.; Farrington, N.; Richardson, A. Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Processes for Older Patients with Complex Needs: A Qualitative Study. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e009674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mysyuk, Y.; Huisman, M. Photovoice Method with Older Persons: A Review. Ageing Soc. 2019, 40, 1759–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y. The Enhanced Participant-Driven Photo Elicitation Method for Everyday Life Health Information Behaviour Research. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 71, 720–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woda, A.; Haglund, K.; Belknap, R.; Cleek, E. Photovoice: A Research Method and Intervention to Engage Older Adults. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 2018, 44, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, T.L.; Owens, O.L.; Friedman, D.B.; Torres, M.E.; Hébert, J.R. Written and Spoken Narratives About Health and Cancer Decision Making: A Novel Application of Photovoice. Health Promot. Pract. 2013, 14, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berman, R.; Davies, A.; Cooksley, T.; Gralla, R.; Carter, L.; Darlington, E.; Scotté, F.; Higham, C. Supportive Care: An Indispensable Component of Modern Oncology. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 32, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berman, R.; Davies, A. Enhanced Supportive Care Is Broader Than Palliative Care. BMJ 2019, 365, l1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phelan, A.; Kirwan, M. Contextualising Missed Care in Two Healthcare Inquiries Using a Socio-Ecological Systems Approach. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 3527–3540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vellas, B.; Guigoz, Y.; Garry, P.J.; Nourhashemi, F.; Bennahum, D.; Lauque, S.; Albarede, J.L. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (Mna) and Its Use in Grading the Nutritional State of Elderly Patients. Nutrients 1999, 15, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soubeyran, P.; Bellera, C.; Goyard, J.; Heitz, D.; Curé, H.; Rousselot, H.; Albrand, G.; Servent, V.; Jean, O.S.; van Praagh, I.; et al. Screening for Vulnerability in Older Cancer Patients: The Oncodage Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.C.; Morrel-Samuels, S.; Hutchison, P.M.; Bell, L.; Pestronk, R.M. Flint Photovoice: Community Building among Youths, Adults, and Policymakers. Am. J. Public Health 2004, 94, 911–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, A.J. Pooled Results from 38 Analyses of the Accuracy of Distress Thermometer and Other Ultra-Short Methods of Detecting Cancer-Related Mood Disorders. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 4670–4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahrokni, A.; Tin, A.; Downey, R.J.; Strong, V.; Mahmoudzadeh, S.; Boparai, M.K.; McMillan, S.; Vickers, A.; Korc-Grodzicki, B. Electronic Rapid Fitness Assessment: A Novel Tool for Preoperative Evaluation of the Geriatric Oncology Patient. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2017, 15, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christopher, A.; Kraft, E.; Olenick, H.; Kiesling, R.; Doty, A. The Reliability and Validity of the Timed up and Go as a Clinical Tool in Individuals with and without Disabilities across a Lifespan: A Systematic Review: Psychometric Properties of the Timed up and Go. Disabil. Rehabil. 2021, 43, 1799–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borson, S.; Scanlan, J.M.; Watanabe, J.; Tu, S.P.; Lessig, M. Simplifying Detection of Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination in a Multiethnic Sample. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 871–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallerand, R.J.; O’Connor, B.P.; Blais, M.R. Life Satisfaction of Elderly Individuals in Regular Community Housing, in Low-Cost Community Housing, and High and Low Self-Determination Nursing Homes. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1989, 28, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, G.C.; Deci, E.L. The Importance of Supporting Autonomy in Medical Education. Ann. Intern. Med. 1998, 129, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, G.C.; McGregor, H.A.; Sharp, D.; Levesque, C.; Kouides, R.W.; Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Testing a Self-Determination Theory Intervention for Motivating Tobacco Cessation: Supporting Autonomy and Competence in a Clinical Trial. Health Psychol. 2006, 25, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maly, R.C.; Frank, J.C.; Marshall, G.N.; DiMatteo, M.R.; Reuben, D.B. Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (Peppi): Validation of an Instrument in Older Persons. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1998, 46, 889–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degner, L.F.; Sloan, J.A.; Venkatesh, P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can. J. Nurs. Res. Arch. 1997, 29, 21–43. [Google Scholar]
- Skull, S. Embedding Clinical Audit into Everyday Practice: Essential Methodology for All Clinicians. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2020, 56, 1533–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Steer, C.; Rasekaba, T.; Owen, K.; Jayasuriya, D.; Kapur, M.; Young, K.; Webb, N.; Blackberry, I. Geriatric Oncology in the Instagram Era: Feasibility and Acceptability Randomised Controlled Trial on Adopting PhotoVoice to Enable Empowerment, Patient-Centred Care, and Shared Decision Making—Study Protocol. Methods Protoc. 2023, 6, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps6040068
Steer C, Rasekaba T, Owen K, Jayasuriya D, Kapur M, Young K, Webb N, Blackberry I. Geriatric Oncology in the Instagram Era: Feasibility and Acceptability Randomised Controlled Trial on Adopting PhotoVoice to Enable Empowerment, Patient-Centred Care, and Shared Decision Making—Study Protocol. Methods and Protocols. 2023; 6(4):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps6040068
Chicago/Turabian StyleSteer, Christopher, Tshepo Rasekaba, Kylie Owen, Darren Jayasuriya, Mira Kapur, Kim Young, Nicole Webb, and Irene Blackberry. 2023. "Geriatric Oncology in the Instagram Era: Feasibility and Acceptability Randomised Controlled Trial on Adopting PhotoVoice to Enable Empowerment, Patient-Centred Care, and Shared Decision Making—Study Protocol" Methods and Protocols 6, no. 4: 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps6040068
APA StyleSteer, C., Rasekaba, T., Owen, K., Jayasuriya, D., Kapur, M., Young, K., Webb, N., & Blackberry, I. (2023). Geriatric Oncology in the Instagram Era: Feasibility and Acceptability Randomised Controlled Trial on Adopting PhotoVoice to Enable Empowerment, Patient-Centred Care, and Shared Decision Making—Study Protocol. Methods and Protocols, 6(4), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps6040068