Nursing and Midwifery (Scholarly Publications)
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/148
Nursing and Midwifery (Scholarly Publications)2024-03-26T22:56:48ZCo-designing a website with and for youth, so they can better manage their health
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/107839
Co-designing a website with and for youth, so they can better manage their health
Coyne, Imelda
Objective: To co-design a website aimed to empower youth to ask questions to encourage productive, meaningful conversations with their health care providers.
Methods: The research team recruited adolescent stakeholders (ages 11-17) through flyers distributed at local Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) locations, clinics, and school nurses. Eleven adolescents who had at least one chronic medical condition were selected as members of the two youth advisory boards. Youth participated in five co-design meetings to give input on website content and refinement over a two-and-a-half-year period. The youth reviewed the website in various stages of development.
Results: Youth wanted a website with simple, straightforward language that would be understood by someone between the ages of 11-17 years with a reputable URL. The website content includes ADHD, asthma, vaping/smoking, diabetes, seizures, anxiety, panic disorder, depression, addiction, stimulants, bullying, eating disorders, and sexually transmitted infections. Youth wanted general background content, helpful resources, question prompt lists, and videos encouraging youth involvement in care.
Conclusions: A credible co-designed website with information on different health topics that contains question prompt lists and videos for utilization during health care visits has the potential to increase adolescent involvement in their care.
Innovation: This website is an innovative intervention aimed at informing and encouraging youth to be more actively involved in their care across a range of healthcare conditions.
PUBLISHED
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZNeoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/107838
Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma
Mc Cullagh, Laura; Coyne, Imelda
Background: Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.
Objectives: To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.
Search methods: We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.
Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.
Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
Main results: We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.
PUBLISHED
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZExperiences of care for adolescents with mental health difficulties in the acute paediatric care setting: A mixed methods systematic review
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/107837
Experiences of care for adolescents with mental health difficulties in the acute paediatric care setting: A mixed methods systematic review
Kirwan, Lisa
PUBLISHED; PROSPERO
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZParticipation in everyday life for young people with chronic pain in Saudi Arabia: you feel lacking in life and you feel that time is flying by.
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/107836
Participation in everyday life for young people with chronic pain in Saudi Arabia: you feel lacking in life and you feel that time is flying by.
Coyne, Imelda
Introduction: Chronic pain is a common health problem that can have a significant impact on children and young people's daily life. Although research on pediatric chronic pain has been a priority globally, little is known about young people's experience of chronic pain in Saudi Arabia. Thus, this article reports on young people's experience of chronic pain and the impact on their lives in Saudi Arabia which forms part of a larger study.
Methods: Multiple case study design following Yin's (2018) approach was used. Purposeful and theoretical sampling were used to recruit young people aged 12 to 18 who had experienced chronic pain for at least three months, their parents, and their school personnel. The young people and their parents were recruited from a tertiary hospital located on the western side of Saudi Arabia while school personnel were recruited from the schools that young people attended. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured face-to-face (n = 15) and telephone interviews (n = 25) from 40 participants (10 young people, 10 parents, and 20 school personnel). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated from Arabic to English. Data were analyzed following two phases: (1) constant comparative analysis; and (2) cross-case analysis based on the work of Charmaz (2014) and Yin (2018) respectively.
Findings: Young people's experiences of chronic pain were categorized into three themes: (1) experiencing chronic pain; (2) impact of pain on quality of life; and (3) everyday strategies to manage chronic pain. All young people reported that their pain was caused by a chronic condition, where the most prevalent pains were musculoskeletal/joint pain, abdominal pain, and headache/migraine. Most young people had encountered challenges with misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis as to the cause of their chronic pain. They described how their chronic pain interfered with their physical, psychological, and social functioning. They primarily managed their pain with medications and through self-care techniques. The findings also indicated that young people's generally positive attitude to their pain reflected their beliefs in Allah's power and the belief that such suffering should be borne according to their Islamic culture.
Conclusion: Chronic pain is a significant health phenomenon that tends to restrict the participation of young people in everyday life. However young people used a range of strategies to normalize the pain so that they could continue with their everyday activities like their peers.
PUBLISHED
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z