Jo Phipps-Nelson

Dr. Jo Phipps-Nelson

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 September 2020 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FLFiona Lynch
Fiona Lynch
LKLynda Katona
Lynda Katona
MJMichael Jefford
Michael Jefford
ASAllan Ben Smith
Allan Ben Smith
JSJoanne Shaw
Joanne Shaw
MFMaria Ftanou
Maria Ftanou
Immunotherapies and targeted therapies have revolutionised treatment of metastatic melanoma and improved survival rates. However, survivors treated with novel therapies are vulnerable to high levels of fear of cancer recurrence or progression (FCR). Existing FCR interventions have rarely been trialled in people with advanced cancer. The current study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of Fear-Less: a stepped-care model to treat FCR in people with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Sixty-one outpatients with metastatic melanoma were screened using the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory Short Form (FCRI-SF) and Fear of Progression Questionnaire Short Form (FoP-Q-SF). Survivors with subthreshold FCR were stratified to a self-management intervention while those with clinical levels of FCR were provided with an individual therapy, Conquer Fear. Survivor experience surveys and rescreening were administered post-intervention completion. Results indicated that Fear-Less was an acceptable and feasible FCR intervention. Results provided preliminary support for the potential impact of Fear-Less in reducing FCR. Fear-Less is a promising first step in providing an acceptable and feasible stepped-care model to treat FCR in survivors with metastatic disease.

30 October 2017 in Trials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MJMichael Jefford
Michael Jefford
JEJon Emery
Jon Emery
EGEva Grunfeld
Eva Grunfeld
AMAndrew Martin
Andrew Martin
PRPaula Rodger
Paula Rodger
PSPenelope Schofield
Penelope Schofield
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient’s primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency. SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs. The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p . Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

1 January 2013 in Trials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MJMichael Jefford
Michael Jefford
SASanchia Aranda
Sanchia Aranda
KGKarla Gough
Karla Gough
KLKerryann Lotfi-Jam
Kerryann Lotfi-Jam
PBPhyllis Butow
Phyllis Butow
PSPenelope Schofield
Penelope Schofield
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women in Australia. The illness and related treatments can cause distressing adverse effects, impact on emotional and psychological well-being, and adversely affect social, occupational and relationship functioning for many years after the end of treatment or, in fact, lifelong. Current models of follow-up fail to address the complex needs arising after treatment completion. Strategies to better prepare and support survivors are urgently required. We previously developed a nurse-led supportive care program (SurvivorCare) and tested it in a pilot study involving 10 CRC survivors. The intervention was found to be highly acceptable, appropriate, relevant and useful. This study is a multisite, randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the impact of the addition of the SurvivorCare intervention to usual post-treatment care, for people with potentially cured CRC. SurvivorCare comprises the provision of survivorship educational materials, a tailored survivorship care plan, an individually tailored nurse-led, face-to-face end of treatment consultation and three subsequent telephone calls. Eligible patients have completed treatment for potentially cured CRC. Other eligibility criteria include stage I to III disease, age greater than 18 years and adequate understanding of English. All consenting patients complete questionnaires at three time points over a six-month period (baseline, two and six months). Measures assess psychological distress, unmet needs and quality of life. This supportive care package has the potential to significantly reduce individual suffering, whilst reducing the burden of follow-up on acute cancer services through enhanced engagement with and utilisation of general practitioners and community based services. If the intervention is successful in achieving the expected health benefits, it could be disseminated readily. All training and supporting materials have been developed and standardised. Furthermore, the intervention could easily be adapted to other cancer or chronic disease settings. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12610000207011 .

21 January 2020 in JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AHAmelia Hyatt
Amelia Hyatt
RLRuby Lipson-Smith
Ruby Lipson-Smith
BMBryce Morkunas
Bryce Morkunas
MKMeinir Krishnasamy
Meinir Krishnasamy
MJMichael Jefford
Michael Jefford
DMDonna Milne
Donna Milne
Background: Health care systems are increasingly looking to mobile device technologies (mobile health) to improve patient experience and health outcomes. SecondEars is a smartphone app designed to allow patients to audio-record medical consultations to improve recall, understanding, and health care self-management. Novel health interventions such as SecondEars often fail to be implemented post pilot-testing owing to inadequate user experience (UX) assessment, a key component of a comprehensive implementation strategy. Objective: This study aimed to pilot the SecondEars app within an active clinical setting to identify factors necessary for optimal implementation. Objectives were to (1) investigate patient UX and acceptability, utility, and satisfaction with the SecondEars app, and (2) understand health professional perspectives on issues, solutions, and strategies for effective implementation of SecondEars. Methods: A mixed methods implementation study was employed. Patients were invited to test the app to record consultations with participating oncology health professionals. Follow-up interviews were conducted with all participating patients (or carers) and health professionals, regarding uptake and extent of app use. Responses to the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) were also collected. Interviews were analyzed using interpretive descriptive methodology; all quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 24 patients used SecondEars to record consultations with 10 multidisciplinary health professionals. In all, 22 of these patients used SecondEars to listen to all or part of the recording, either alone or with family. All 100% of patient participants reported in the MARS that they would use SecondEars again and recommend it to others. A total of 3 themes were identified from the patient interviews relating to the UX of SecondEars: empowerment, facilitating support in cancer care, and usability. Further, 5 themes were identified from the health professional interviews relating to implementation of SecondEars: changing hospital culture, mitigating medico-legal concerns, improving patient care, communication, and practical implementation solutions. Conclusions: Data collected during pilot testing regarding recording use, UX, and health professional and patient perspectives will be important for designing an effective implementation strategy for SecondEars. Those testing the app found it useful and felt that it could facilitate the benefits of consultation recordings, along with providing patient empowerment and support. Potential issues regarding implementation were discussed, and solutions were generated. Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000730202; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373915&isClinicalTrial=False

21 January 2020 in Australian Health Review
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ADAllison Drosdowsky
Allison Drosdowsky
SBSarah Blaschke
Sarah Blaschke
TKTrista Koproski
Trista Koproski
SFSonia Fullerton
Sonia Fullerton
ATArti Thackerar
Arti Thackerar
CNCorry de Neef
Corry de Neef
Objectives: Access to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital. Results: In all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (± s.d.) age 59 ± 15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n = 271; 80%). Conclusion: This study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product. What is known about the topic?: Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes. What does this paper add?: In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed. What are the implications for practitioners?: Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis.

15 June 2024 in Supportive Care in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SRSkrabal Ross
Skrabal Ross
SKS. Konings
S. Konings
ESE. Schiena
E. Schiena
JPJo Phipps-Nelson
Jo Phipps-Nelson
YWYining Wang
Yining Wang
FMFiona McDonald
Fiona McDonald
Purpose: A new Parent Support Worker (PSW) service was piloted in three Australian hospitals. This study assesses the feasibility and acceptability (including preliminary effectiveness) of the service in supporting cancer patients with children. Methods: A multi-site, mixed-methods study collected quantitative and qualitative data on the effectiveness of the service (pre post-test, n = 36), qualitative and quantitative data on acceptability of the service (survey, n = 43), and qualitative data on acceptability (semi-structured interviews, n = 13). Feasibility was assessed through rates of service uptake amongst referred parents. Results: Of 1133 parents referred, 810 (71%) accepted to receive the service, suggesting high interest in PSW support. Interviewees likewise reported that the service was accessible and facilitated further referrals, indicating good feasibility. Surveys completed three months after accessing PSW support showed high acceptability and satisfaction. Additionally, there was preliminary evidence of service impacts: parents’ distress, parenting concerns, parenting efficacy, and stress about situations of concern improved significantly from pre- to post-service (all p < 0.005). Interviewees further described how their emotional coping and confidence to support and communicate with their children had improved through contact with the service. Conclusion: The PSW service, integrated into a novel cross-sector model of care, showed to be feasible and acceptable to parent patients and their partners and improved psychological and parenting outcomes. The study suggests refinements to the service and the need for future larger studies to explore the effectiveness of the service in improving parents’ outcomes. This study complements previous evidence on the implementation of the PSW service in hospitals.