Search

Purpose: To describe the perceptions of haematological cancer patients about the components of care deemed essential to supporting them to obtain and understand information about their cancer, its treatment and its impact on their life.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with individuals diagnosed with haematological cancer. Eligible patients presenting for a scheduled outpatient appointment were invited to complete a pen-and-paper survey in the clinic waiting room while waiting for their appointment. Those who completed the survey were mailed a second survey approximately 4 weeks later. Participants provided data about their demographic and disease characteristics and perceptions of optimal care for haematological cancer patients.Results: A total of 170 patients completed both surveys and were included in the analysis. The items endorsed as essential components of care by the highest number of participants were being able to share accurate information about their disease, treatment and ongoing care with their GP/family doctor (49%); being able to obtain up-to-date information specific to their circumstances (43%); being able to obtain information in the amount of detail that they want (34%); being able to call a health care professional at the treatment centre where they are receiving care (34%) and being able to call an experienced health care professional who has knowledge of their disease and its treatment (34%).Conclusions: Further research is needed to determine ways of meeting the preferences of haematological cancer patients and determining the associated impact on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discounting is a useful framework for understanding choice involving a range of delayed and probabilistic outcomes (e.g., money, food, drugs), but relatively few studies have examined how people discount other commodities (e.g., entertainment, sex). Using a novel discounting task, where the length of a line represented the value of an outcome and was adjusted using a staircase procedure, we replicated previous findings showing that individuals discount delayed and probabilistic outcomes in a manner well described by a hyperbola-like function. In addition, we found strong positive correlations between discounting rates of delayed, but not probabilistic, outcomes. This suggests that discounting of delayed outcomes may be relatively predictable across outcome types but that discounting of probabilistic outcomes may depend more on specific contexts. The generality of delay discounting and potential context dependence of probability discounting may provide important information regarding factors contributing to choice behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This review aimed to examine (a) trends in the number of publications on unmet needs over time and (b) the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce unmet needs among cancer patients. Methods: An electronic literature search of Medline to explore trends in the number of publications on patients' unmet needs and an additional literature search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science databases to identify methodologically rigorous research trials that evaluated interventions to reduce unmet needs were conducted. Results: Publications per year on unmet needs have increased over time, with most being on descriptive research. Nine relevant trials were identified. Six trials reported no intervention effect. Three trials reported that intervention participants had a lower number of unmet needs or lower unmet needs score, compared to control participants. Of these, one study found that the intervention group had fewer supportive care needs and lower mean depression scores; one study found that intervention participants with high problem-solving skills had fewer unmet needs at follow-up; and one study found an effect in favor of the intervention group on psychological need subscale scores. Conclusions: Reasons for varying results across trials and the limited effectiveness of unmet needs interventions are more broadly discussed. These include inadequacies in psychometric rigor, problems with scoring methods, the use of ineffective interventions, and lack of adherence to intervention protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]