Individuals with cancer and their families assume responsibility for management of cancer as an acute and chronic disease. Yet, cancer lags other chronic diseases in its provision of proactive self-management support in routine, everyday care leaving this population vulnerable to worse health status, long-term disability, and poorer survival. Enabling cancer patients to manage the medical and emotional consequences and lifestyle and work changes due to cancer and treatment is essential to optimizing health and recovery across the continuum of cancer. In this paper, the Global Partners on Self-Management in Cancer puts forth six priority areas for action: Action 1: Prepare patients and survivors for active involvement in care; Action 2: Shift the care culture to support patients as partners in cocreating health and embed self-management support in everyday health-care provider practices and in care pathways; Action 3: Prepare the workforce in the knowledge and skills necessary to enable patients in effective self-management and reach consensus on core curricula; Action 4: Establish and reach consensus on a patient-reported outcome system for measuring the effects of self-management support and performance accountability; Action 5: Advance the evidence and stimulate research on self-management and self-management support in cancer populations; Action 6: Expand reach and access to self-management support programs across care sectors and tailored to diversity of need and stimulation of research to advance knowledge. It is time for a revolution to better integrate self-management support as part of high-quality, person-centered support and precision medicine in cancer care to optimize health outcomes, accelerate recovery, and possibly improve survival.

Background Experience-based codesign (EBCD) is an approach to health service design that engages patients and healthcare staff in partnership to develop and improve health services or pathways of care. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the use (structure, process and outcomes) and reporting of EBCD in health service improvement activities. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published from database inception to August 2018. Search terms identified peer-reviewed English language qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that underwent independent screening by two authors. Full texts were independently reviewed by two reviewers and data were independently extracted by one reviewer before being checked by a second reviewer. Adherence to the 10 activities embedded within the eight-stage EBCD framework was calculated for each study. Results We identified 20 studies predominantly from the UK and in acute mental health or cancer services. EBCD fidelity ranged from 40% to 100% with only three studies satisfying 100% fidelity. Conclusion EBCD is used predominantly for quality improvement, but has potential to be used for intervention design projects. There is variation in the use of EBCD, with many studies eliminating or modifying some EBCD stages. Moreover, there is no consistency in reporting. In order to evaluate the effect of modifying EBCD or levels of EBCD fidelity, the outcomes of each EBCD phase (ie, touchpoints and improvement activities) should be reported in a consistent manner. Trial registration number CRD42018105879.

Radiation-induced skin reaction (RISR) is a common side effect that affects the majority of cancer patients receiving radiation treatment. RISR is often characterised by swelling, redness, pigmentation, fibrosis, and ulceration, pain, warmth, burning, and itching of the skin. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of interventions which aim to prevent or manage RISR in people with cancer. We searched the following databases up to November 2012: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), CINAHL (from 1981) and LILACS (from 1982). Randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for preventing or managing RISR in cancer patients were included. The primary outcomes were development of RISR, and levels of RISR and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were time taken to develop erythema or dry desquamation; quality of life; time taken to heal, a number of skin reaction and symptom severity measures; cost, participant satisfaction; ease of use and adverse effects. Where appropriate, we pooled results of randomized controlled trials using mean differences (MD) or odd ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Forty-seven studies were included in this review. These evaluated six types of interventions (oral systemic medications; skin care practices; steroidal topical therapies; non-steroidal topical therapies; dressings and other). Findings from two meta-analyses demonstrated significant benefits of oral Wobe-Mugos E for preventing RISR (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.38)) and limiting the maximal level of RISR (MD -0.92 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.48)). Another meta-analysis reported that wearing deodorant does not influence the development of RISR (OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.37)). Despite the high number of trials in this area, there is limited good, comparative research that provides definitive results suggesting the effectiveness of any single intervention for reducing RISR. More research is required to demonstrate the usefulness of a wide range of products that are being used for reducing RISR. Future efforts for reducing RISR severity should focus on promising interventions, such as Wobe-Mugos E and oral zinc.