Search

As many patients' sole point of contact with the health care system, primary health care physicians (general practitioners [GPs] in Australia) are often positioned as key players in responding to rates of overweight and obesity in dominant public discourse. However, research from Western industrialised countries suggests that GPs may not be prepared for, or confident in, having conversations about overweight and obesity with patients. Little attention has been given to this topic in Australia, particularly in the context of rural health. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs in two rural settings in Victoria, Australia talk about overweight and obesity with patients. Working from a multidisciplinary perspective, a qualitative study design was adopted, and semi‐structured interviews were conducted with seven GPs and seven GP patients living in two rural communities between January and April, 2016. Data was coded manually and thematic analysis was used to explore the data. The findings of this study support the argument that, in contrast to dominant messages within public health discourses, GPs may not be best placed to act as the primary actors in responding to overweight and obesity as they are constructed in epidemiological terms. In fact, the perspectives of GP study participants suggest that to do so would compromise important dimensions of general medical practice that make it simultaneously a human practice. Instead, more balanced, holistic approaches to discussing and responding to overweight and obesity with patients could be taken up in local, interdisciplinary collaborations between different health professionals and patients, which utilise broader social supports. Focussing on long‐term, incremental programs that consider the whole person within their particular socio‐cultural environment would be a productive means of working with the complexities of overweight and obesity. However, structural level changes are required to ensure such initiatives are sustainable in rural practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Somatic mutations in key oncogenes in non-small cell lung cancer ( NSCLC) and melanoma are important determinants of tumour sensitivity to targeted therapies. Molecular screening for these predictive biomarkers is routinely used to inform treatment decisions; however, little is known about how best to communicate testing and results to patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore advanced cancer patients' attitudes and experiences regarding somatic tumour screening to identify their information and support needs. Sixteen NSCLC and eight melanoma patients who had undergone screening participated in a semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interview exploring their understanding, views, preferences and needs regarding screening. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed for thematic patterns. Participants expressed positive views and unequivocal acceptance of screening, and understood its role in guiding treatment selection. They preferred to receive information verbally through simple, non-technical language from their oncologist with additional take-home materials. Patients were interested in learning about their test results, but wanted discussion to be focused on practical matters relevant to treatment. While receiving their screening results was not considered burdensome, information overload and cancer-related distress were identified as barriers to test comprehension. Patients may benefit from information and decision-related tools to better understand genomic information and adequately support psychosocial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe the (a) number and type of cancer care providers that radiation oncology outpatients report discussing life expectancy with, and (b) perceptions of the acceptability and utility of life expectancy information. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey of patients receiving radiotherapy was undertaken in four treatment centres. Patients indicated whether they had discussed life expectancy with a cancer doctor (i.e., medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeon, haematologists) and/or other cancer care provider (i.e., general practitioner, radiation therapist, nurse); and acceptability and utility of information. Results: Of 207 respondents, 133 (64%) had discussed life expectancy with at least one provider. General practitioners (GPs) were the most frequent source of information. Of those who had discussed life expectancy, half (n = 110/207) perceived cancer would not impact life expectancy. Information was easy to understand (91%), discussed sensitively (90%), helped plan for future (83%) and gave them certainty (86%). The information made 11% feel overloaded and 34% feel anxious. Conclusion: Two‐thirds of respondents had discussed life expectancy with at least one cancer care provider. Providers from the range of disciplines involved in cancer care need to be skilled at communicating life expectancy information and recognising the adverse impact this may have on some patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses aspects of decision making in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer. Topics include women's trust in clinicians to avoid the burden of decision-making in NACT for the treatment of breast cancer, women's access to a decision-support tool to help in their decision-making and the reasons behind breast cancer patients consideration of NACT.