Koczwara, Bogda http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1201-1642
Knowles, Reegan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7237-6678
Beatty, Lisa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8847-8452
Shepherd, Heather L. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3350-1325
Shaw, Joanne M. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9543-7066
Dhillon, Haryana M. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4039-5169
Karnon, Jonathan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3220-2099
Ullah, Shahid http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0010-2640
Butow, Phyllis http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3562-6954
Funding for this research was provided by:
Hospital Research Foundation
Article History
Received: 23 April 2022
Accepted: 13 December 2022
First Online: 21 December 2022
Declarations
:
: Approval was granted by the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (application 2020/HRE00633).
: As screening was considered the best practice routine care, no patient consent for screening was required. If the patient was willing to be screened, the patient was given an option of consenting to researcher review of medical records to collect any missing data, such as the action taken to address the identified symptom(s). If the patient declined medical record access, the screening could still proceed, but no records were reviewed.
: The authors declare no competing interests.
Free to read: This content has been made available to all.