The National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway (NOLCP) was introduced by the NHS to improve timelier diagnosis and staging, enabling patients to progress rapidly to optimal treatment. While care pathways can be streamlined, contextual factors may compromise patient engagement with their care. Northeast London is ethnically diverse and highly deprived; two factors associated with difficulty navigating care systems and increased cancer mortality. This study aims to explore how patient and carer characteristics, and factors related to their location, interact to influence patients' capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with the NOLCP and improve patient outcomes.

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can detect indeterminate pulmonary nodules, which carry a low risk of lung cancer (LC) but require surveillance scans. Healthcare professionals' (HCPs) communication can reduce patients' distress, uncertainty and concern, but nodule communication practices in the UK have yet to be examined. This multicentre qualitative study aimed to explore HCPs' experiences and communication practices for disclosing LDCT-detected pulmonary nodule diagnoses to patients undergoing surveillance.

Abstract Introduction Cancer multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTM) assemble clinical experts to make diagnostic and treatment recommendations. MDTMs can take place in person, virtually, or in a hybrid format. Virtual and hybrid MDTMs have been in use for over two decades. This systematic scoping review aims to map the evidence on virtual and hybrid MDTM formats over time, providing insights into their quality, and the facilitators and barriers to their effective delivery. Methods The PRISMA scoping review checklist has been followed. A systematic search of PubMed, PsychINFO, and Embase between 1990–2023 identified 9399 records. These were independently screened by two researchers to identify primary research of any design that assessed quality or effectiveness of cancer VMDTMs. Results were narratively synthesised. Results Eight quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed-methods studies were included. All were observational and most were retrospective (n = 8). Varied outcome measures were used to evaluate meeting quality, including treatment recommendations, survival, time from diagnosis, and overall attendance. VMDTMs were superior (N = 6) or sometimes equivalent (N = 4) to face-to-face meetings. Studies identified implementation factors critical to their effective delivery, including internet-stability and chairing. Conclusion The heterogeneous literature suggests VMDTMs offer some benefits over face-to-face meetings. Training and infrastructure are key to prevent risks to patient safety. A definitive comparative evaluation is needed to inform best practice.

Purpose To synthesize the qualitative literature exploring the experiences of people living with lung cancer in rural areas. Methods Searches were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers against pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data were synthesized using Thomas and Harden’s framework for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research. The CASP qualitative checklist was used for quality assessment and the review was reported in accordance with the ENTREQ and PRISMA checklists. Results Nine articles were included, from which five themes were identified: (1) diagnosis and treatment pathways, (2) travel and financial burden, (3) communication and information, (4) experiences of interacting with healthcare professionals, (5) symptoms and health-seeking behaviors. Lung cancer diagnosis was unexpected for some with several reporting treatment delays and long wait times regarding diagnosis and treatment. Accessing treatment was perceived as challenging and time-consuming due to distance and financial stress. Inadequate communication of information from healthcare professionals was a common concern expressed by rural people living with lung cancer who also conveyed dissatisfaction with their healthcare professionals. Some were reluctant to seek help due to geographical distance and sociocultural factors whilst others found it challenging to identify symptoms due to comorbidities. Conclusions This review provides a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by people with lung cancer in rural settings, through which future researchers can begin to develop tailored support to address the existing disparities that affect this population.

People with lung cancer, and those who support them, require clear and consistent communication from their healthcare providers to support their engagement in diagnostic and treatment pathways. No systematic review exists that reports on people's qualitative experiences surrounding the communication of a lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment options. This review aimed to identify and synthesise qualitative evidence surrounding patients', carers', and healthcare professionals' experiences of communicating a lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Introduction Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death globally. In 2022 the UK National Screening Committee recommended the implementation of a national targeted lung cancer screening programme, aiming to improve early diagnosis and survival rates. Research studies and services internationally consistently observe socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in screening uptake. Pathway navigation (PN) is a process through which a trained pathway navigator guides people to overcome barriers to accessing healthcare services, including screening. This nested randomised controlled trial aims to determine whether a PN intervention results in more individuals participating in lung cancer screening compared with the usual written invitation within a previous non-responder population as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST).Methods and analysis A two-arm randomised controlled trial and process evaluation nested within the YLST. Participants aged 55–80 (inclusive) who have not responded to previous postal invitations to screening will be randomised by household to receive PN or usual care (a further postal invitation to contact the screening service for a lung health check) between March 2023 and October 2024. The PN intervention includes a postal appointment notification and prearranged telephone appointment, during which a pathway navigator telephones the participant, following a four-step protocol to introduce the offer and conduct an initial risk assessment. If eligible, participants are invited to book a low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening scan. All pathway navigators receive training from behavioural psychologists on motivational interviewing and communication techniques to elicit barriers to screening attendance and offer solutions.Coprimary outcomes The number undergoing initial telephone assessment of lung cancer risk. The number undergoing an LDCT screening scan.Secondary outcomes include demographic, clinical and risk parameters of people undergoing telephone risk assessment; the number of people eligible for screening following telephone risk assessment; the number of screen-detected cancers diagnosed; costs and a mixed-methods process evaluation.Descriptive analyses will be used to present numbers, proportions and quantitative components of the process evaluation. Primary comparisons of differences between groups will be made using logistic regression. Applied thematic analysis will be used to interpret qualitative data within a conceptual framework based on the COM-B framework. A health economic analysis of the PN intervention will also be conducted.Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following the Confidentiality Advisory Group review. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations and on the YLST website.Trial registration numbers ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.

Abstract Background Lung cancer is the third most common cancer in the UK and the leading cause of cancer mortality globally. NHS England guidance for optimum lung cancer care recommends management and treatment by a specialist team, with experts concentrated in one place, providing access to specialised diagnostic and treatment facilities. However, the complex and rapidly evolving diagnostic and treatment pathways for lung cancer, together with workforce limitations, make achieving this challenging. This place-based, behavioural science-informed qualitative study aims to explore how person-related characteristics interact with a person’s location relative to specialist services to impact their engagement with the optimal lung pathway, and to compare and contrast experiences in rural, coastal, and urban communities. This study also aims to generate translatable evidence to inform the evidence-based design of a patient engagement intervention to improve lung cancer patients’ and informal carers’ participation in and experience of the lung cancer care pathway. Methods A qualitative cross-sectional interview study with people diagnosed with lung cancer < 6 months before recruitment (in receipt of surgery, radical radiotherapy, or living with advanced disease) and their informal carers. Participants will be recruited purposively from Barts Health NHS Trust and United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trusts to ensure a diverse sample across urban and rural settings. Semi-structured interviews will explore factors affecting individuals’ capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with their recommended diagnostic and treatment pathway. A framework approach, informed by the COM-B model, will be used to thematically analyse facilitators and barriers to patient engagement. Discussion The study aligns with the current policy priority to ensure that people with cancer, no matter where they live, can access the best quality treatments and care. The evidence generated will be used to ensure that lung cancer services are developed to meet the needs of rural, coastal, and urban communities. The findings will inform the development of an intervention to support patient engagement with their recommended lung cancer pathway. Protocol registration The study received NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 23/SC/0255) and NHS Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 328531) approval on 04/08/2023. The study was prospectively registered on Open Science Framework (16/10/2023; https://osf.io/njq48 ).

Data from the ongoing Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) indicate that 50% of people invited to a lung cancer screening risk-assessment do not take up the offer, with lowest uptake by people from less affluent areas and who currently smoke. Pathway Navigation (PN) helps individuals overcome barriers to accessing healthcare, particularly among populations disadvantaged by inequalities. This study tests whether PN improves uptake of lung cancer screening compared to normal written invitation within the YLST.

There are wide variations and inequalities in lung cancer care across the UK, but most research has focused on improving the quality of clinical services and less on individual-related factors. There is evidence to suggest that rural people with lung cancer may experience unique inequalities in care compared to their urban counterparts. Lincolnshire has some of the most deprived parts of the UK, particularly in rural and coastal areas, where people face considerable barriers to engaging with, and accessing cancer care. This study explores how rural patient and carer characteristics, and factors related to their location, interact to influence patients' capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with their recommended treatment pathway.

OBJECTIVES:This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the benefits and harms of psychological interventions compared to treatment as usual, waiting list, active control, or another psychological intervention to improve emotional well-being in adults with an advanced progressive life-limiting illness.

INTRODUCTION:In the UK, the National Cancer Plan (2000) requires every cancer patient's care to be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Since the introduction of these guidelines, MDTs have faced escalating demands with increasing numbers and complexity of cases. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented MDTs with the challenge of running MDT meetings virtually rather than face-to-face.This study aims to explore how the change from face-to-face to virtual MDT meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the effectiveness of decision-making in cancer MDT meetings and to make recommendations to improve future cancer MDT working based on the findings.METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A mixed-methods study with three parallel phases:Semistructured remote qualitative interviews with ≤40 cancer MDT members.A national cross-sectional online survey of cancer MDT members in England, using a validated questionnaire with both multiple-choice and free-text questions.Live observations of ≥6 virtual/hybrid cancer MDT meetings at four NHS Trusts.Participants will be recruited from Cancer Alliances in England. Data collection tools have been developed in consultation with stakeholders, based on a conceptual framework devised from decision-making models and MDT guidelines. Quantitative data will be summarised descriptively, and χ2 tests run to explore associations. Qualitative data will be analysed using applied thematic analysis. Using a convergent design, mixed-methods data will be triangulated guided by the conceptual framework.The study has been approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee (London-Hampstead) (22/HRA/0177). The results will be shared through peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. A report summarising key findings will be used to develop a resource pack for MDTs to translate learnings from this study into improved effectiveness of virtual MDT meetings.The study has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D2NHW).

Recent research proposed that the slowing of individual alpha frequency (IAF) could be an objective marker of pain. However, it is unclear whether this research can fully address the requirements of specificity and sensitivity of IAF to the pain experience. Here, we sought to develop a robust methodology for assessing the specificity of the relationship between alpha oscillations and acute tonic pain in healthy individuals. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) of 36 volunteers during consecutive 5-minute sessions of painful hot water immersion, innocuous warm water immersion and aversive, non-painful auditory stimulus, matched by unpleasantness to the painful condition. Participants rated stimulus unpleasantness throughout each condition. We isolated two regions of the scalp displaying peak alpha activity across participants: centro-parietal (CP) and parieto-occipital (PO) ROI. In line with previous research our findings revealed decreased IAF during hot compared with warm stimulation, however the effect was not specific for pain as we found no difference between hot and sound in the CP ROI (compared to baseline). In contrast, the PO ROI reported the same pattern of differences, but their direction was opposite to the CP in that this ROI revealed faster frequency during hot condition than controls. Finally, we show that IAF in both ROIs did not mediate the relationship between the experimental manipulation and the affective experience. Altogether, these findings emphasize the importance of a robust methodological and analytical design to disclose the functional role of alpha oscillations during affective processing. Likewise, they suggest the absence of a causal role of IAF in the generation of acute pain experience in healthy individuals.

INTRODUCTION:The current COVID-19 pandemic has forced hospices to look for more ways to support people remotely, including psychological support. Emotional disclosure-based interventions hold potential as a way of providing support remotely. However, evidence of their efficacy in people with terminal illness is mixed. Reviews have highlighted this may be due to interventions not being tailored to the unique needs of this population. In response to this, we are developing Let It Out (LIO), an online, self-guided emotional disclosure-based intervention tailored for people living with terminal illness.AIMS:The primary objective of the study is to optimise the design of the LIO intervention. Secondary objectives include assessing its acceptability and feasibility; exploring potential impact on well-being; identifying potential adverse effects; and informing choice of outcome measures for potential future evaluation.METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A single arm, mixed-methods, multisite, longitudinal study. Up to 40 people living with a terminal illness under the care of hospices in England and Scotland will receive the online LIO intervention. LIO consists of 3, self-guided expression sessions over 2 weeks. The primary outcome measures are (1) a structured feedback form completed by participants after the final expression session; and (2) semi-structured interviews and focus groups with ≤15 patient participants, ≤30 hospice staff and ≤15 informal carers. These quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated via process evaluation to inform optimisation of the intervention design. Secondary outcome measures include validated measures of physical and psychological health collected at baseline and after the final expression session (immediately, 1, 4 and 8 weeks after); and data on recruitment, retention and fidelity.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study is approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (reference: 15281/002). The findings will be shared through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences, and traditional, online and social media platforms.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated adoption of remote ways of providing hospice care, including psychological support. Emotional disclosure (ED) interventions hold potential as a way of providing such support online. But evidence supporting use of ED interventions for people living with terminal illness is limited. We are testing an online psychological intervention, Let It Out (LIO), consisting of three self-guided expression sessions over two weeks. Aims: The primary aim is to inform the development of LIO. Secondary aims include assessing LIO's acceptability, feasibility of study methods and potential impact on wellbeing. Methods: A mixed-methods, longitudinal study. Adults receiving palliative care were recruited from six UK hospices from September 2020 to January 2021. Participants received the LIO intervention, and completed physical and psychological health-related questionnaires at baseline and immediately, one week, four weeks and eight weeks after the final expression session, with a feedback form after the final session. Two also took part in a semi-structured interview. Focus groups and interviews have also been held with 12 hospice staff and volunteers. Data have been triangulated through process evaluation. Results: Of 13 patients recruited, 8 have completed all three expression sessions. Most people who finish LIO find it helpful (7/8). One person who withdrew found the online platform too complicated to use. Staff felt LIO could be helpful for computer-literate patients, but reported difficulties with recruitment. Conclusion: Preliminary evidence suggests LIO holds potential to support wellbeing for some people living with terminal illness. Adaptions are required to make the online platform more user-friendly. This study demonstrates the value of robust consultation with patients and staff in the development of acceptable online interventions for use in palliative care.

Background: Emotional disclosure is the therapeutic expression of emotion. It holds potential as a means of providing psychological support. However, evidence of its efficacy in palliative settings is mixed. This may be due to variation in intervention characteristics. Aim: To derive a greater understanding of the characteristics of potentially effective emotional disclosure-based interventions in palliative care by: (1) Developing a taxonomy of emotional disclosure-based interventions tested in people with advanced disease and (2) Mapping and linking objectives, outcomes, underlying mechanisms, and implementation factors. Design: A scoping review drawing on Intervention Component Analysis to combine evidence from studies' methods, results, and discussion sections. Data sources: Six databases were searched to May 2020 including CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE. Studies of emotional disclosure in adults with advanced disease were included. Study quality was appraised using an established tool. Results: Seven thousand seven hundred ninety-two unique records were screened, of which 25 primary studies were included. Intervention characteristics were grouped into classes within three domains: topic of disclosure, format, and dose. Evidence was not available to determine which, if any, of the characteristics is most effective. Thematic synthesis of evidence from methods and discussion sections identified factors to consider in tailoring an emotional disclosure-based intervention to this setting, including: population characteristics (e.g. time since diagnosis), providing a safe environment, and flexibility in format. Conclusions: This review approach facilitated a clearer understanding of factors that may be key in developing emotional disclosure-based interventions for palliative populations. Intervention Component Analysis has potential for application elsewhere to help develop evidence-based interventions.

Background Providing psychological support to people living with terminal illness is a fundamental part of hospice care. Recent research on delivery of psychological services in hospices in the United Kingdom (UK) on a national level, including inequalities or variation in practice, is limited. A nationwide survey will highlight any differences in provision and in doing so help focus future research and inform best practice both within the UK, and internationally. The specific objectives of this survey are to (1) chart the types of psychological support available to adult patients in hospices in the UK in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence model; (2) explore how services are organised; and (3) gather service perspectives on adequacy of care, and facilitators and barriers to appropriate practice. Methods A cross-sectional online survey emailed to adult hospices in the UK in November–December 2019. One staff member involved in the delivery and/or organisation of psychological support was invited to participate per hospice. Of 193 invited hospices, 116 took part. Results Sixteen percent rated their hospice psychological service as wholly adequate. The majority reported that services can access specialist professionals, but many relied on external referrals. Barriers to best practice included funding and staff capacity; facilitators included clear referral structures, audit and appropriate needs and outcome assessments. Conclusions Access to psychological professionals has improved since the last survey 15 years ago, but the majority of responders felt their overall service was not wholly adequate. Basic emotional support is largely felt to be sufficient, but our results indicate a need for improvements in access to more specialist care. Partnerships with external mental health services may be key. Our findings highlight core facilitators and barriers to providing good psychological care at the end of life that should be considered by services both within the UK and on an international level.