Search

Being diagnosed with cancer constitutes not only an immediate threat to health, but cancer treatments may also have a negative impact on fertility. Retrospective studies show that many survivors regret not having received fertility-related information and being offered fertility preservation at time of diagnosis. This qualitative study investigates newly diagnosed cancer patients' experiences of fertility-related communication and how they reason about the risk of future infertility.Informants were recruited at three cancer wards at a university hospital. Eleven women and 10 men newly diagnosed with cancer participated in individual semi-structured interviews focusing on three domains: experiences of fertility-related communication, decision-making concerning fertility preservation, and thoughts and feelings about the risk of possible infertility. Data was analyzed through qualitative content analysis.The analysis resulted in three sub-themes, 'Getting to know', 'Reacting to the risk' and 'Handling uncertainty', and one main theme 'Women more vulnerable when facing risk for infertility', indicating that women reported more negative experiences related to patient-provider communication regarding fertility-related aspects of cancer treatment, as well as negative emotional reactions to the risk of infertility and challenges related to handling uncertainty regarding future fertility. The informants described distress when receiving treatment with possible impact on fertility and used different strategies to handle the risk for infertility, such as relying on fertility preservation or thinking of alternative ways to achieve parenthood. The negative experiences reported by the female informants may be related to the fact that none of the women, but almost all men, had received information about and used fertility preservation.Women newly diagnosed with cancer seem to be especially vulnerable when facing risk for treatment-induced infertility. Lack of shared decision-making concerning future fertility may cause distress and it is therefore necessary to improve the fertility-related communication targeted to female cancer patients.

Purpose. The aim of the present randomized intervention study was to investigate the effect of receiving extended cancer genetic information on counselees' knowledge, risk perception, information sharing and satisfaction with the service. Methods. In total, 147 counselees, affected by cancer and/or a family history of cancer, were randomized to extended or standard information. The levels of counselees' knowledge and personal risk estimations were measured at four time points. In addition, counselees' satisfaction with the counseling and sharing of the information to at-risk relatives was assessed. The intervention included meeting a specialist nurse, learning the breaking bad news method, receiving written material and video-taped counseling sessions. Results. A significant increase in the level of knowledge in participants in the "breast cancer group" regardless of the randomization was observed over time. The correct estimation of personal risk increased significantly in both groups after two weeks, but declined at the eight month follow-up. Most of the participants had informed at-risk relatives about their visit at the cancer genetic clinic. The majority of respondents in both groups were highly satisfied with the counseling. The only observed effects of the intervention were that counselees in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with the content of the given information and with the way of informing relatives. Conclusion. Apparently, the current genetic counseling is managed properly and extended information does not seem necessary in all cases. However, some counselees need additional sessions.

This paper reviews patient and staff perceptions of cancer patients' psychological concerns and needs. An extensive literature search resulted in a total of 22 studies. Six of these concern staff ratings of hypothetical 'average' patients, and the main findings are that staff and patients are in relative agreement about the overall spectrum of concerns relevant to cancer patients, but less so regarding which concerns are of most importance to patients. Sixteen studies compare patient ratings with staff ratings of individual patients. The overall pattern of results indicates that staff tend to overestimate patient anxiety and emotional distress and show limited ability adequately to assess patient distress in terms of rank. Staff were able correctly to detect a majority of anxiety 'cases', while the identification of depression was less accurate. High detection rates for anxiety were obtained partly at the expense of staff also presuming anxiety in many non-distressed patients. Generally, there was better patient-staff agreement on the absence than the presence of patient anxiety and depression. Many studies were found to have serious methodological deficiencies and there is no clear evidence that patient-staff agreement is markedly better in studies fulfilling important methodological criteria. Several explanations of patient-staff discrepancies are discussed. Future research should be aimed at critically testing possible reasons for patient-staff disagreement and at investigating the consequences of such discrepancies.

Coping, psychosocial well-being, situation-specific anxiety and cancer-related worry were assessed in 197 consecutive cancer patients attending follow-up visits. Participants completed questionnaire on three occasions: at the follow-up visit, some days later (n = 175) and three weeks later (n = 125). High levels of coping styles 'Anxious Preoccupation' and 'Helplessness/Hopelessness' were associated with low levels of psychosocial well-being, more situation-specific anxiety and more cancer-related worry. High levels of 'Fighting Spirit' and 'Fatalistic' were found to be associated with high psychosocial well-being and, for 'Fighting Spirit', also with less cancer-related worry. Patients with a 'dismal' prognosis were found to have higher levels of 'Helplessness/Hopelessness' than patients with a more 'favorable' prognosis. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Editorial comment on "How do interventions design to improve provider-patient communication work? Illustrative applications of a framework for communication" and "The State of the Science: Informing choices across the cancer journey with public health mechanisms and decision processes"