Search

Purpose Implementation of return to work (RTW) programs for cancer survivors has proved to be challenging. The purpose of our study was to gather experiences about barriers to and facilitators of implementing RTW programs for cancer survivors in four European countries. Methods Separate multidisciplinary focus groups were held in Belgium (n = 8), the Netherlands (n = 8), Ireland (n = 6), and UK (n = 4) in 2017 and included among others a physician, and a representative of an employer, a cancer society, and the government. Primary focus of thematic analysis was what could be done to improve the implementation of RTW programs for cancer survivors. Analysis used the 'Arena in work disability prevention model' as the conceptual framework. Results Many barriers to and facilitators of implementing RTW programs for cancer survivors were described including the personal, workplace, healthcare and legislative system as well as the overall societal and political context. That is, for example cooperation between stakeholders, time, money and ability issues at the workplace, and insufficient/inadequate legislation. Insufficient knowledge of cancer and its implications for work was identified as an overarching theme in all countries leading to stigma, misconceptions and lack of communication. This was mentioned in relation to the workplace, personal and healthcare system, and in the overall societal context. Conclusions Results indicate that a prerequisite for implementing RTW programs is raising sufficient knowledge regarding cancer and its implications for work. Greater knowledge could be a first step to better implement RTW programs which may result in better supporting cancer survivors with their RTW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The application of ethically controversial medical procedures may differ from one place to another. Drawing on a keyword and text-mining analysis of 156 interviews with doctors and nurses involved in end-of-life care ('care providers'), differences between countries in care providers' ethical rationales for the use of sedation are reported. In the United Kingdom, an emphasis on titrating doses proportionately against symptoms is more likely, maintaining consciousness where possible. The potential harms of sedation are perceived to be the potential hastening of social as well as biological death. In Belgium and the Netherlands, although there is concern to distinguish the practice from euthanasia, rapid inducement of deep unconsciousness is more acceptable to care providers. This is often perceived to be a proportionate response to unbearable suffering in a context where there is also greater pressure to hasten dying from relatives and others. This means that sedation is more likely to be organised like euthanasia, as the end 'moment' is reached, and family farewells are organised before the patient is made unconscious for ever. Medical and nursing practices are partly responses to factors outside the place of care, such as legislation and public sentiment. Dutch guidelines for sedation largely tally with the practices prevalent in the Netherlands and Belgium, in contrast with those produced by the more international European Association for Palliative Care whose authors describe an ethical framework closer to that reportedly used by UK care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses whether gender plays a role when male and female participants discuss the quality of doctor-patient communication in gynaecological consultations. A European multi-centre study was conducted comprising 259 participants in 35 genderand country-specific focus groups. In all focus groups, a set of four videotaped Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) consultations was used as a prompt for discussion. The doctors' ability in communication was assessed by participants' ratings and by a quantified content analysis of their comments, using a mixed-method approach. Gender analysis was performed applying a set of generalized linear regression models. The findings indicated that gender differences were smaller than expected. The individual ratings of the overall quality of communication were similar for male and female participants, and there were hardly any differences in the content of the discussions. The only two exceptions were that female doctors were criticized more than male doctors when they made impersonal comments and that female participants were more outspoken than men, positively and negatively. The prevalence of gender similarities suggests that doctors' empathy, support, understanding and pleasantness are highly appreciated by both male and female participants and appear to transcend gender differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]