Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background In cancer care, shared decision-making (SDM) is especially relevant as different treatment options have a different impact on prognosis and patients’ quality of life. However, evidence suggests that SDM is not routinely practiced. Furthermore, literature is mostly focussed on the outpatient setting. This study explored healthcare providers’ perspectives on SDM for oncology inpatients and identified barriers and facilitators. Method In this qualitative study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were held with five nurses, eleven residents, four oncologists, and two healthcare managers caring for oncology inpatients of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden hospital. Results Healthcare professionals do not always clearly state when a decision is required. On a patient level, comprehension barriers, language barrier, and distraction by emotions or sickness are recognized as barriers for adequate patient’s communication. On a healthcare professional level, having awareness to inform about choices, being able to transfer this information, connecting to the patient, having substantial experience, and a good patient-physician relationship were facilitators. On an organizational, level, time, private rooms, continuity in care, and suboptimal use of the electronic health record were barriers. Conclusion While SDM is recognized and valued, its implementation is inconsistent. Addressing the several barriers found and optimizing the facilitators is imperative. A start could be by raising awareness for SDM in the inpatient setting, adding SDM as part of the care pathway, stating to patients when a decision is required, reporting on the SDM process in the electronic health record, and describing the nurses’ role in SDM.

Objective Previous studies in patients with lung cancer examined the association between psychological factors with quality of life (QoL), as well as the association between psychological factors with sociodemographic and medical characteristics. However, knowledge about the impact of combinations of psychological characteristics on QoL is still lacking. Therefore, the current study aimed to identify psychological profiles, covering multiple psychological factors. Additionally, the association between these profiles with QoL and with sociodemographic and medical characteristics was explored. Methods Patients with lung cancer ( n  = 130, mean age = 68.3 ± 8.6 years; 49% men) completed questionnaires focusing on sociodemographic information, anxiety and depressive symptoms (HADS), coping (COPE-easy), perceived social support (PSSS), and QoL (WHOQOL-BREF). Medical information was extracted from patients’ medical records. A step-3 latent profile analysis was performed to identify the psychological profiles. Multinomial logit models were used to explore the medical and sociodemographic correlates of the profiles and the relation with QoL. Results Four psychological profiles were identified as follows: (1) anxious, extensive coping repertoire (33%); (2) depressive, avoidant coping (23%); (3) low emotional symptoms, active/social coping (16%); and (4) low emotional symptoms, limited coping repertoire (29%). QoL in profile 1 (QoL = 6.59) was significantly different from QoL in profile 3 (QoL = 8.11, p  = .001) and profile 4 (QoL = 7.40, p  = .01). QoL in profile 2 (QoL = 6.43) was significantly different from QoL in profile 3 (QoL = 8.11, p  = .003) and profile 4 (QoL = 7.40, p  = .02). Regarding QoL, no other significant differences were found. Sociodemographic and medical characteristics were not distinctive for the profiles (all p values > .05). Conclusion Determining psychological profiles of patients with lung cancer in an early stage provides information that may be helpful in aligning care with patients’ unique needs, as it will help in more adequately selecting those patients who are in need of psychological screening and/or psychological treatment as compared with determining scores on single psychological factors.

ObjectivesPatients with lung cancer (LC) have high rates of psychosocial symptoms and international guidelines recommend regular psychosocial screening during treatment. This study evaluates psychosocial consequences of diagnosis and treatment of LC in a qualitative way and evaluates the need for a LC specific screening instrument.MethodsFocus group meetings with LC patients were divided by treatment type. Patients discussed psychological and social consequences of diagnosis and treatment. Major themes were identified using content analysis. Themes were re-evaluated in a subsequent focus group, in accordance with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines.ResultsPatients reported a range of psychosocial consequences, such as frustration due to physical limitations, fear of recurrence, sadness of leaving behind partner and children, and disappointing social support. Patients treated with palliative intent specifically indicated insecurities about the future. Patients from all treatment modalities indicated a need for family support during treatment. No themes specific to LC arose.ConclusionsPatients with LC are coping with a range of psychosocial consequences, independent of the type of treatment they receive. Fear of recurrence/metastasis and insecurity about the future were more prominent in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Themes were not specific to LC; therefore, a screening instrument specific for the LC population does not seem required. However, the current standard for screening is considered insufficiently sensitive and a stepped screening approach with specific screening tools and a clinical interview is suggested as usual care.

Purpose Sexual dysfunction among patients with colorectal cancer is frequently reported. Studies examining patients’ sexual health care needs are rare. We examined the sexual health care needs after colorectal cancer treatment according to patients, partners, and health care professionals (HCPs). Factors that impede or facilitate the quality of this care were identified. Method Participants were recruited from three Dutch hospitals: St. Elisabeth, TweeSteden, and Catharina hospitals. Patients ( n  = 21), partners ( n  = 9), and 10 HCPs participated in eight focus groups. Results It is important to regularly evaluate and manage sexual issues. This does not always occur. Almost all participants reported a lack of knowledge and feelings of embarrassment or inappropriateness as barriers to discuss sexuality. HCPs reported stereotypical assumptions regarding the need for care based on age, sex, and partner status. The HCPs debated on whose responsibility it is that sexuality is discussed with patients. Factors within the organization, such as insufficient re-discussion of sexuality during (long-term) follow-up and unsatisfactory (knowledge of the) referral system impeded sexual health care. The HCPs could facilitate adequate sexual health care by providing patient-tailored information and permission to discuss sex, normalizing sexual issues, and establishing an adequate referral system. It is up to the patients and partners to demarcate the extent of sexual health care needed. Conclusions Our findings illustrate the need for patient-tailored sexual health care and the complexity of providing/receiving this care. An adequate referral system and training are needed to help HCPs engage in providing satisfactory sexual health care.

Objectives To examine (1) measurement invariance of quality of life (QoL) domains over time for patients with colorectal cancer and partners (i.e., response shift—recalibration, reprioritization, and reconceptualization), (2) between dyad-member measurement invariance and (3) QoL trajectories. Methods Participants completed the WHOQOL-Bref preoperative (Time-0) and 3 (Time-1) and 6 months (Time-2) postoperative. A stepwise procedure, using nested factor models, examined the viability of restricting specific model parameters to be equal across measurements and between dyad members. Findings No reconceptualization and reprioritization was detected, but indications for recalibration were present. Therefore, comparisons were restricted to group-level statistics at factor level. For patients, a decrease in the Physical Health domain occurred at Time-1 (p < 0.001), with partial recovery to baseline at Time-2 (p = 0.055). For partners, factor means in this domain remained constant (p's > 0.05) and were at each time point higher than patients' factor means (p's < 0.05). Patients' and partners' Psychological Health decreased at Time-1 (p's < 0.05), with stabilization at Time-2 (p's > 0.05). Patients and partners' factor means were comparable (p's > 0.05). Patients and partners' Social Relationship factor means decreased at Time-1 (p's < 0.05), which decreased further for patients (p = 0.011) but stabilized for partners (p = 0.214). Partners' factor means were only lower than patients' factor means at Time-1. A similar decrease in the Environmental domain factor means occurred for both patients and partners at Time-l (p's < 0.05), with stabilization at Time-2 (p's > 0.05). Conclusion Since both patients and partners are affected by the patients' disease and treatment, we recommend that attention is paid to the couple instead of solely the patient.