Search

PURPOSE We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer. Key words: behavior change; implementation; primary health care; prostatic neoplasms; urologists; surveillance; interdisciplinary communication; patient care team; continuity of care; coordination of care; qualitative research, INTRODUCTION For men with low-risk prostate cancer, national guidelines, such as those of the American Urological Association and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, recommend active surveillance as the primary [...]

Depression and suicidality after first episode of psychosis are well-documented responses in patients with schizophrenia (Addington, Williams, Young, & Addington, 2004). The understanding of depression and suicidality has been increasingly refined through careful study. Researchers have identified a number of factors that may cause depression such as insight into the illness, feelings of loss and inferiority about the illness as a damaging life event, hopelessness about having a viable future with the illness and mourning for losses engendered by the illness. The authors argue that grief and mourning are not just an occasional reaction to the diagnosis of schizophrenia, but are a necessary part of coming to terms with having the illness. They offer three case examples, each of which illuminates a distinct way in which psychosis and mourning may be related--psychosis as a loss of former identity, psychosis as offering meaning and transformation, and psychosis as a way of coping with the inability to mourn. In their view, recovery depends on mourning illness-related losses, developing personal meaning for the illness, and moving forward with 'usable insight' and new identity (Lewis, 2004) that reflects a new understanding of one's strengths and limitations with the illness.