OBJECTIVES:Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders (SSRD) are associated with frequent healthcare utilisation and elevated costs, yet their impact within Emergency Departments (EDs) remains underexplored. This study investigates the relationship between somatisation score and healthcare utilisation and costs in an Australian ED setting. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:A tertiary public hospital ED in Australia serving metropolitan and rural populations. Healthcare utilisation and cost data were extracted from the local network's Activity Based Management database for 3.5 financial years preceding the index presentation. PARTICIPANTS:375 ED patients aged 18-70 years screened using the PHQ-15 and WI-7 tools over a two-week period. Participants were classified as high or low somatisers using dynamic cutoffs. Total available healthcare costs and occasions of service over the 42 months preceding the index ED presentation were gathered. Negative binomial regression models were used to identify predictors of total costs and service occasions. RESULTS:High somatisers (59.84% of the sample) incurred significantly greater healthcare costs (mean AUD $23,713 vs. $10,392) and service occasions (mean 38.7 vs. 18.7) than low somatisers. regression analyses identified somatisation severity, age and female sex as significant predictors of increased healthcare utilisation and costs. Presentation-based variables such as triage category and diagnosis were not significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS:High somatisation scores are strongly associated with increased healthcare utilisation and costs in ED patients. These findings suggest that SSRD may be a previously neglected factor in hospital resource planning. Early identification and appropriate management of SSRD in EDs could yield substantial economic and clinical benefits.

Abstract Introduction Research indicates that the immobilisation mask required for radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancers can provoke intense anxiety. However, little is known about the rates of this anxiety, whether it changes over a course of treatment and how it is managed in clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the rates and patterns of situational anxiety in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer and the use of anxiety management interventions in current clinical practice in a major regional cancer setting in New South Wales, Australia. Methods Situational anxiety rates and patterns were assessed at five time points using the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory prior to treatment planning (SIM), the first three treatment sessions (Tx 1, Tx 2 and Tx 3) and treatment 20 (Tx 20). Sessions were observed to record the use of general supportive interventions (music and support person) and anxiety‐specific interventions (break from the mask, relaxation techniques and anxiolytic medication). Sociodemographic and clinical information was extracted from the medical record. Results One hundred and one patients were recruited. One‐third had clinically significant anxiety at any of the first three time points (33.3–40%), and a quarter at Tx 3 (26.4%) and Tx 20 (23.4%). Of the sample, 55.4% had available data for categorisation into one of four pattern groups: ‘No Anxiety’ (46.4%); ‘Decreasing Anxiety’ (35.7%); ‘Increasing Anxiety’ (7.1%); and ‘Stable High Anxiety’ (10.7%). Most participants had social support present at SIM (53.5%) and listened to music during treatment (86.7–92.9%). Few participants received relaxation techniques alone (1.2–2.3%). Anxiolytic medication was provided for 10% of patients at some stage during the treatment journey and 5% required a break from the mask at SIM, with frequency decreasing throughout the treatment course. Conclusions In this regional cancer setting, situational anxiety was common, but generally decreased throughout treatment. Some patients experience persistent or increasing anxiety, with up to 10% of patients receiving specific anxiety management interventions.

PurposeMalnutrition affects up to 80% of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) and is associated with higher burden of disease, poorer treatment outcomes, and greater mortality. The Eating As Treatment (EAT) intervention is a behavioral intervention previously demonstrated to be effective in improving nutritional status, depression, and quality of life in patients with HNC. This article examines the effects of the EAT intervention on 5-year mortality among participants.Methods and MaterialsA multicenter, stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 5 Australian hospitals. Dietitians were trained to deliver EAT, a combination of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavior therapy strategies, to patients with HNC receiving radiation therapy. Secondary analyses of survival benefit on an intention-to-treat basis were performed. Differences in proportions of 5-year all-cause mortality between the control and EAT intervention arms were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, and 5-year survival rates were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses controlled for temporal effects (study duration), hospital site (clustering), and baseline nutritional status differences.ResultsOverall, there were 64 deaths in the 5 years after enrollment, 36 (24%) among those assigned to the control condition and 28 (18%) among those assigned to EAT. Logistic regression showed statistically significant reduced odds in favor of EAT (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11-0.96), with an absolute risk reduction of 17% (95% CI, 0.01-0.33) and a relative risk reduction of 55% (95% CI, 0.22-0.92), resulting in a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI, 4-13). Survival analysis revealed that risk of death was significantly reduced by the EAT intervention (hazard ratio, 0.39; 0.16-0.96).ConclusionsParticipation in EAT provided a statistically and clinically meaningful survival benefit, likely via improved nutrition during radiation therapy. This survival benefit strengthens the finding of the main trial, showing that a behavioral intervention focused on nutrition could improve HNC outcomes. Replication studies using stepped-wedge designs for implementation into clinical practice may be warranted.

Purpose: Despite the increased demand [8], and accessibility [5], to medical cannabis (MC) there is a general consensus among physicians that evidence on its efficacy [10,12,13], and safety [4,11], is lacking. Although research has explored medical professionals’ perceptions of MC [10, 12,13], to our knowledge there is minimal research exploring patients’ perceptions; particularly in an Australian cancer setting [14,15,16,17]. We therefore aimed to explore patients’ perceptions of the efficacy, safety, and evidence for MC. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional questionnaire of Australian cancer patients attending adult oncology outpatient clinics in the Hunter New England Local Health District. Patients were 18 years, or older, and had a confirmed diagnosis of cancer (solid or haematological). Results: 19% of our cohort were using MC. Despite using for symptom control such as pain (61%), and, in some cases perceived anti-cancer activity (12% to cure and 16% to slow the cancer); a minority of users believed that the evidence for either of these indications was of high quality (28% and 29% respectively). A minority of users (31%) were receiving information on MC from clinicians. Most instead rely on resources such as TV, friends, family, social media and websites. Conclusion: This study demonstrated current real world cancer patients’ perceptions on: the evidence for MC, the sources of information used to shape their health beliefs, and compares users to non-users. The results highlight the need for treating teams to combat potential misinformation that patients may be accessing on MC and provide information on treatments with greater evidence.

Background Behaviour change counselling (BCC) is an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MI) designed to maximize the effectiveness of time-limited health behaviour change consultations. To improve intervention quality and understanding of treatment effects, it is recommended that evaluations of health behaviour change interventions incorporate existing fidelity frameworks (e.g. The National Institutes of Health [NIH] Behaviour Change Consortium) and ensure that treatment fidelity is assessed and reported.Purpose This systematic review was designed to examine (a) adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations, (b) provider fidelity to BCC and (c) impact of these variables on the real-world effectiveness of BCC for adult health behaviours and outcomes.Methods and Results Searches of 10 electronic databases yielded 110 eligible publications describing 58 unique studies examining BCC delivered within real-world healthcare settings by existing providers. Mean study adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations was 63.31% (Range 26.83%-96.23%). Pooled effect size (Hedges g) for short-term and long-term outcomes was .19 (95% CI [.11, .27]) and .09 (95% CI [.04, .13]), respectively. In separate, random-effects meta-regressions, neither short-term nor long-term effect sizes were significantly modified by adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations. For the subgroup of short-term alcohol studies (n = 10), a significant inverse relationship was detected (Coefficient = -.0114, 95% CI [-.0187, -.0041], p = .0021). Inadequate and inconsistent reporting within the included studies precluded planned meta-regression between provider fidelity and BCC effect size.Conclusions Further evidence is needed to clarify whether adherence to fidelity recommendations modifies intervention effects. Efforts to promote transparent consideration, evaluation and reporting of fidelity are urgently needed. Research and clinical implications are discussed.

Despite the increased demand [8], and accessibility [5], to medical cannabis (MC) there is a general consensus among physicians that evidence on its efficacy [10,12,13], and safety [4,11], is lacking. Although research has been undertaken to explore medical professionals’ perceptions of the: benefits, risks, and evidence of MC in general [10], and specifically in a cancer setting [12,13]; there is minimal research exploring patients’ perceptions, particularly in a cancer setting [14,15,16]. We conducted a prospective cross-sectional questionnaire of Australian cancer patients’ attending adult oncology outpatient clinics between April 2019 to March 2020. 350 patients completed the survey; 19% being MC users. Demographics significantly associated with use were male gender (P <.05) and tobacco smoking (P<.01). The most common indication for use was pain (61%). Over 85% of all patients, regardless of using, had accessed some form of information on MC, but only a minority received such information from their healthcare team; relying instead on resources like: friends, TV, and social media. Interestingly, despite using MC, and generally scoring it as highly beneficial, most users “disagreed”, that there was high quality evidence to support this. To our knowledge, this is the first study exploring cancer patient’s perceptions of: the evidence for MC, the sources of information used to shape their health beliefs, and which directly compares users to non-users. Surprisingly, our results showed that despite using MC, and believing it worked for them as individuals, the majority of users felt the evidence was not high quality. Concerningly, a high proportion of patients believe MC has anti-cancer activity; and are relying on information provided by resources other than traditional healthcare providers, which are considered unreliable [23, 24]. We hope that our results highlight the need for the treating team to combat potential misinformation that patients may be receiving on MC and link them to the palliative care team for treatments with greater evidence.

Abstract Procedural anxiety is a concern for a number of patients undergoing radiation therapy. While procedural anxiety is often treated pharmacologically, there is a clinical need for effective alternative strategies for patients who are contraindicated from medication use, and those who prefer not to take unnecessary medications. Objectives The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer, in the radiation oncology department, just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety. The secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of these interventions in reducing physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety and anxiety‐related treatment disruptions. Design Systematic review. Data Sources Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception up until February 2022. Inclusion Criteria Population: Adult patients with cancer undergoing external beam radiation therapy. Intervention: Nonpharmacological interventions delivered within the radiation therapy department. Comparison: standard care controls, or standard care plus an alternative intervention. Outcomes: level of self‐reported procedural anxiety (primary), physiological symptoms of anxiety (secondary) and measures of anxiety‐related treatment disruptions (secondary). Data Extraction and Analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data. A meta‐analysis was originally planned but deemed not feasible as the studies could not be confidently pooled for meta‐analysis, due to the variability in the interventions, study designs and the generally low number of studies. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. Results Screening of 2363 records identified nine studies that met inclusion criteria: six studies of music interventions, two of video‐based patient education and one of aromatherapy. Overall, three studies received a global rating of strong methodological quality and low risk of bias. Three studies reported a significant effect of the intervention on reducing the primary outcome of self‐reported procedural anxiety: two music interventions (both strong methodological quality), and one video‐based patient education (moderate methodological quality). One of the studies (a music intervention) also reported a significant reduction in the secondary outcome of physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety (systolic blood pressure). Conclusions The evidence for nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety is limited, with very few well‐designed studies. There is a need for interventions for procedural anxiety during radiation therapy to be evaluated through rigorous randomised controlled trials.

Aims Dietary modification is essential for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, there are limited published evidence syntheses to guide practice in the cardiac rehabilitation (CR) setting. This systematic review's objective was to assess effectiveness and reporting of nutrition interventions to optimize dietary intake in adults attending CR. Methods and results Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nutrition interventions within CR were eligible for inclusion and had to have measured change in dietary intake. MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2000 to June 2020, limited to publications in English. Evidence from included RCTs was synthesized descriptively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This review is registered on PROSPERO; CRD42020188723. Of 13 048 unique articles identified, 11 were eligible. Randomized controlled trials were conducted in 10 different countries, included 1542 participants, and evaluated 29 distinct dietary intake outcomes. Five studies reported statistically significant changes in diet across 13 outcomes. Most nutrition interventions were not reported in a manner that allowed replication in clinical practice or future research. Conclusion There is a gap in research testing high-quality nutrition interventions in CR settings. Findings should be interpreted in the light of limitations, given the overall body of evidence was heterogenous across outcomes and study quality; 6 of 11 studies were conducted more than 10 years old. Future research should investigate strategies to optimize and maintain nutrition improvements for patients attending CR. Registration PROSPERO; CRD42020188723.

Introduction: More than 20% of patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer report anxiety specifically related to the immobilisation mask, a tight-fighting mask patients are required to wear for the duration of each treatment session. However, limited research has investigated this from the patient perspective. The aim of this study was to better understand patient experiences of mask anxiety during head and neck cancer radiation therapy and to explore patient attitudes toward potential strategies that may reduce mask anxiety during this treatment. Methods: Five patients with head and neck cancer, who had self-reported mask anxiety during radiation therapy, participated in semi-structured, qualitative interviews exploring their experiences of anxiety and suggestions for reducing anxiety. A codebook thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Six main themes were identified: (1) triggers of anxiety; (2) adjusting to radiation therapy; (3) education about the mask; (4) coping; (5) motivation and (6) improving the patient experience. Conclusion: Findings from these interviews provide valuable insight into how and when healthcare providers may be able to assist patients to manage mask anxiety. Recommendations include increased communication from health care providers; delivery of visual information to improve patient preparedness; exposure/ opportunities to interact with the masks prior to treatment commencing and increased control of music/soundtrack selection. However, a limitation of this study is the small sample size and further research is warranted.

PURPOSE:The aim was to increase cardiac rehabilitation (CR) uptake using a novel intervention, Rehabilitation Support Via Postcard (RSVP), among patients with acute myocardial infarction discharged from two major hospitals in Hunter New England Local Health District (HNELHD), New South Wales, Australia.METHODS:The RSVP trial was evaluated using a two-armed randomised controlled trial design. Participants (N=430) were recruited from the two main hospitals in HNELHD, and enrolled and randomised to either the intervention (n=216) or control (n=214) group over a six-month period. All participants received usual care; however, the intervention group received postcards promoting CR attendance between January and July 2020. The postcard was ostensibly written as an invitation from the patient's admitting medical officer to promote timely and early uptake of CR. The primary outcome was CR attendance at outpatient HNELHD CR services in the 30-days post-discharge.RESULTS:Fifty-four percent (54%) of participants who received RSVP attended CR, compared to 46% in the control group; however this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR]=1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.9-2.0, p=0.11). Exploratory post-hoc analysis among four sub-groups (i.e., Indigeneity, gender, age and rurality), found that the intervention significantly increased attendance in males (OR=1.6, 95%CI=1.0-2.6, p=0.03) but had no significant impact on attendance for other sub-groups.CONCLUSIONS:While not statistically significant, postcards increased overall CR attendance by 8%. This strategy may be useful to increase attendance, particularly in men. Alternative strategies are necessary to increase CR uptake among women, Indigenous people, older people and people from regional and remote locations.

Objective: To evaluate nurses' satisfaction and experiences of redeployment during COVID-19.Background: Redeployment to an unfamiliar environment can be challenging; however, it can also present an opportunity for staff to learn new skills. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to redeploy health professionals, particularly nurses, increased dramatically. Evaluating nurses' satisfaction and experiences related to redeployment during the pandemic is essential for future surge planning.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey consisting of single-choice and open-ended questions was conducted on a purposive sample of nurses (n=106) working in an acute hospital in New South Wales, Australia, from July to August 2020. Nurses who were redeployed to wards different from their regular workplaces were invited to participate in the survey. Areas of redeployment include various medical and surgical wards, intensive care units and the emergency department. Nurses' satisfaction was obtained through the survey question structured as a Likert scale ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Nurse experiences were captured through a single-choice question (positive or negative experience) and open-ended questions. The single -choice questions were analysed by summarising participant responses, and open-ended questions were analysed using an iterative thematic analysis approach.Results: A high proportion of nurses were either neutral (48.4%, n=45) or dissatisfied (44.1%, n=41) with redeployment, with only 7.5% (n=7) of nurses being satisfied. There was a mix of positive (43%, n=40) and negative (57%, n=53) redeployment experiences. Three main themes influence nurses' redeployment experience: "staff friendly and welcoming", "patient allocation", and "support".Conclusion: Redeployment of healthcare workers during a pandemic is inevitable. This study highlighted that despite close to half of the redeployed nurses reporting a positive redeployment experience, only a few were satisfied with redeployment. This indicated that more work is required to support nurses during redeployment to increase satisfaction. Future workforce redeployment needs to consider healthcare workers' needs and must strive to improve satisfaction to build a sustainable and resilient health system.Implications for research, policy, and practice:This study highlighted that although redeployment is challenging, staff can have a positive redeployment experience when supported. Elements that are associated with positive redeployment experience were explored in this study, which can inform policy and prepare nurses for future surge demand.

BACKGROUND:Information on smoking and other health factors in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients throughout treatment, follow-up and survivorship is limited. This study explores patterns of multiple health factors during radiotherapy (RT) and naturalistic long-term follow-up in a convenience sample of patients with HNC.METHODS:Smoking, alcohol use and depression were measured at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks post RT for a sub-group of 99 patients who participated in a randomised controlled trial and completed long-term follow-up. These factors plus healthy eating, physical activity and fatigue are also reported from the long-term follow-up component. Smoking was measured by self-report and biochemically, whilst all other variables were by self-report. Where variables were assessed at multiple time points logistic mixed effects regression models determined within-person changes over time.RESULTS:There were important discrepancies between self-reported (4-7%) and biochemically verified (13-29%) rates of smoking. Rates of smoking and hazardous alcohol intake were significantly increased at follow-up compared to baseline. Depression rates were observed to be higher at end of RT compared to baseline. At long-term follow-up, fatigue was common and co-occurred with suboptimal healthy eating and hazardous alcohol use.CONCLUSION:Clinically important levels of smoking and alcohol consumption post RT in this sample suggest possible targets for intervention beyond treatment into long-term follow-up of patients.

IntroductionPatients undergoing treatment for cancer who require radiation therapy (RT) report anxiety specifically relating to the RT procedure. Procedural anxiety can be detrimental to treatment delivery, causing disruptions to treatment sessions, or treatment avoidance. Acute procedural anxiety is most commonly managed with anxiolytic medication. There is a need for effective, non-pharmacological interventions for patients not suitable for, or who prefer to avoid, anxiolytic medication. The primary objectives of this pilot trial are to evaluate the: (1) feasibility of conducting the Biofeedback Enabled CALM (BeCALM) intervention during RT treatment sessions; (2) acceptability of the BeCALM intervention among patients; and (3) acceptability of the BeCALM intervention among radiation therapists. The secondary objective of this pilot trial is to examine the potential effectiveness of the BeCALM intervention delivered by radiation therapists to reduce procedural anxiety during RT.Methods and analysisThis is a pilot randomised controlled trial. A researcher will recruit adult patients with cancer (3-month recruitment period) scheduled to undergo RT and meeting eligibility criteria for procedural anxiety at the Calvary Mater Hospital, Newcastle (NSW), Australia. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive treatment as usual or the BeCALM intervention (biofeedback plus brief breathing techniques). The primary outcomes are feasibility (measured by recruitment, retention rates and percentage of treatment sessions in which the intervention was successfully delivered); radiation therapists perceived feasibility and acceptability (survey responses); and patient perceived acceptability (survey responses). Secondary outcome is potential effectiveness of the intervention (as measured by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory—State subscale; the Distress Thermometer; and an analysis of treatment duration).Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has received approval from Hunter New England Health Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/ETH11356). The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, as well as presentation at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001742864.

Background: Patients undergoing (chemo) radiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) are at high risk of malnutrition during and after treatment. Malnutrition can lead to poor tolerance to treatment, treatment interruptions, poor quality of life (QOL) and potentially reduced survival rate. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is now known as the major cause of OPSCC. However, research regarding its effect on nutritional outcomes is limited. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between HPV status and nutritional outcomes, including malnutrition and weight loss during and after patients’ (chemo) radiotherapy treatment for OPSCC. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study comparing the nutritional outcomes of HPV-positive and negative OPSCC patients undergoing (chemo) radiotherapy. The primary outcome was nutritional status as measured using the Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Secondary outcomes included loss of weight, depression, QOL and adverse events. Results: Although HPV-positive were less likely to be malnourished according to PG-SGA at the beginning of treatment, we found that the difference between malnutrition rates in response to treatment was not significantly different over the course of radiotherapy and 3 months post treatment. HPV-positive participants had significantly higher odds of experiencing >10% weight loss at three months post-treatment than HPV-negative participants (OR = 49.68, 95% CI (2.7, 912.86) p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: The nutritional status of HPV positive and negative patients were both negatively affected by treatment and require similarly intense nutritional intervention. In acute recovery, HPV positive patients may require more intense intervention. At 3- months post treatment, both groups still showed nutritional symptoms that require nutritional intervention so ongoing nutritional support is essential.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW Clinically significant distress is common in patients with cancer and if untreated can be associated with adverse outcomes. This article offers a review of current approaches to implementing and reporting the minimum components of distress screening and management interventions in cancer services. RECENT FINDINGS Twenty-two relevant published articles were identified from January 2018 to February 2020. The reporting of recommended minimum components of distress screening and management interventions in these articles was not consistent. The majority of studies used validated tools to conduct initial screening. However, recommendations were either not reported or not followed regarding subsequent pathway components, secondary assessment, referral pathways linked to screening results and rescreening. The majority of studies did not include a description of the implementation of the distress screening program. A small number of studies described a comprehensive set of implementation strategies. SUMMARY Distress screening and management interventions in cancer are an important component of comprehensive cancer care. To improve patient outcomes and guide researchers and services to identify effective models, studies must include and evaluate minimum recommended components and implementation strategies. Addressing these limitations with high-quality, robust interventions is vital for advancing the implementation of effective distress management.

BACKGROUND:It is unknown how many distressed patients receive the additional supportive care recommended by Australian evidence-based distress management guidelines. The study identifies the (1) distress screening practices of Australian cancer services; (2) barriers to improving practices; and (3) implementation strategies which are acceptable to service representatives interested in improving screening practices.METHOD:Clinic leads from 220 cancer services were asked to nominate an individual involved in daily patient care to complete a cross-sectional survey on behalf of the service. Questions related to service characteristics; screening and management processes; and implementation barriers. Respondents indicated which implementation strategies were suitable for their health service.RESULTS:A total of 122 representatives participated from 83 services (51%). The majority of respondents were specialist nurses or unit managers (60%). Approximately 38% of representatives' services never or rarely screen; 52% who screen do so for all patients; 55% use clinical interviewing only; and 34% follow referral protocols. The most common perceived barriers were resources to action screening results (74%); lack of time (67%); and lack of staff training (66%). Approximately 65% of representatives were interested in improving practices. Of the 8 implementation strategies, workshops (85%) and educational materials (69%) were commonly selected. Over half (59%) indicated a multicomponent implementation program was preferable.CONCLUSIONS:Although critical gaps across all guideline components were reported, there is a broad support for screening and willingness to improve. Potential improvements include additional services to manage problems identified by screening, more staff time for screening, additional staff training, and use of patient-report measures.