Gaining a clear understanding of the health needs and concerns of people with cancer of the colon and/or rectum can help identify ways to offer a comprehensive care package. Our aim was to systematically assess the relevant literature and synthesise current available evidence. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched to identify studies employing qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Pre-specified selection criteria were applied to all retrieved records. Findings were integrated in a narrative synthesis. Of 3709 references initially retrieved, 54 unique studies were retained. A total of 136 individual needs were identified and classified into eight domains. Just over half of the needs (70; 51%) concerned information/education or health system/patient-clinician communication issues. Emotional support and reassurance when trying to deal with fear of cancer recurrence featured as the most prominent need regardless of clinical stage or phase of treatment. Information about diet/nutrition and about long-term self-management of symptoms and complications at home; tackling issues relating to the quality and mode of delivery of health-related information; help with controlling fatigue; and on-going contact with a trustworthy health professional also featured as salient needs. Available research evidence is of moderate-to-good quality. Investing time to sensitively inquire about the supportive care needs of this patient population is key, whilst evaluating and re-shaping clinical interactions based on patients' priorities is equally essential. The diverse needs identified require a multi-professional and multi-agency approach to ensure unmet needs are addressed or measures offered.

Background: The use of technology-enhanced patient-reported outcome measures to monitor the symptoms experienced by people with cancer is an effective way to offer timely care. Objective: This study aimed to (a) explore the feasibility and acceptability of the Advanced Symptom Management System with patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy and clinicians involved in their care and (b) assess changes in patient outcomes during implementation of the Advanced Symptom Management System with patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy in clinical practice. Methods: A repeated-measures, single-arm, mixed-methods study design was used involving poststudy interviews and completion of patient-reported outcome measures at baseline and end of treatment with 16 patients with lung cancer and 13 clinicians who used this mobile phone–based symptom monitoring system. Results: Only rarely did patients report problems in using the handset and they felt that the system covered all relevant symptoms and helped them to manage their symptoms and effectively communicate with clinicians. Clinical improvements in patient anxiety, drowsiness, and self-care self-efficacy were also observed. Clinicians perceived the use of “real-time” risk algorithms and automated self-care advice provided to patients as positively contributing to clinical care. Reducing the complexity of the system was seen as important to promote its utility. Conclusions: Although preliminary, these results suggest that monitoring patient symptoms using mobile technology in the context of radiotherapy for lung cancer is feasible and acceptable in clinical practice. Implications for practice: Future research would be most beneficial if the use of this technology was focused on the postradiotherapy phase and expanded the scope of the system to encompass a wider range of supportive care needs.

Introduction While some evidence exists that real-time remote symptom monitoring devices can decrease morbidity and prevent unplanned admissions in oncology patients, overall, these studies have significant methodological weaknesses. The electronic Symptom Management using the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) Remote Technology (eSMART) study is designed to specifically address these weaknesses with an appropriately powered, repeated-measures, parallel-group stratified randomised controlled trial of oncology patients. Methods and analysis A total of 1108 patients scheduled to commence first-line chemotherapy (CTX) for breast, colorectal or haematological cancer will be recruited from multiple sites across five European countries. Patients will be randomised (1:1) to the ASyMS intervention (intervention group) or to standard care currently available at each site (control group). Patients in the control and intervention groups will complete a demographic and clinical questionnaire, as well as a set of valid and reliable electronic patient-reported outcome measures at enrolment, after each of their CTX cycles (up to a maximum of six cycles) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after completion of their sixth cycle of CTX. Outcomes that will be assessed include symptom burden (primary outcome), quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-care self-efficacy, work limitations and cost effectiveness and, from a health professional perspective, changes in clinical practice (secondary outcomes). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will be obtained prior to the implementation of all major study amendments. Applications will be submitted to all of the ethics committees that granted initial approval. eSMART received approval from the relevant ethics committees at all of the clinical sites across the five participating countries. In collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), the trial results will be disseminated through publications in scientific journals, presentations at international conferences, and postings on the eSMART website and other relevant clinician and consumer websites; establishment of an eSMART website (www.esmartproject.eu) with publicly accessible general information; creation of an eSMART Twitter Handle, and production of a toolkit for implementing/utilising the ASyMS technology in a variety of clinical practices and other transferable health care contexts. Trial registration number NCT02356081.

To provide an overview of three consecutive stages involved in the processing of quantitative research data (ie, data management, analysis, and interpretation) with the aid of practical examples to foster enhanced understanding. Published scientific articles, research textbooks, and expert advice were used. Typically, a considerable amount of numerical research data is collected that require analysis. On entry into a data set, data must be carefully checked for errors and missing values, and then variables must be defined and coded as part of data management. Quantitative data analysis involves the use of statistics. Descriptive statistics help summarize the variables in a data set to show what is typical for a sample. Measures of central tendency (ie, mean, median, mode), measures of spread (standard deviation), and parameter estimation measures (confidence intervals) may be calculated. Inferential statistics aid in testing hypotheses about whether or not a hypothesized effect, relationship, or difference is likely true. Inferential statistical tests produce a value for probability, the P value. The P value informs about whether an effect, relationship, or difference might exist in reality. Crucially, it must be accompanied by a measure of magnitude (effect size) to help interpret how small or large this effect, relationship, or difference is. Effect sizes provide key information for clinical decision-making in health care. Developing capacity in the management, analysis, and interpretation of quantitative research data can have a multifaceted impact in enhancing nurses' confidence in understanding, evaluating, and applying quantitative evidence in cancer nursing practice.