Search

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a challenging treatment characterized by multiple morbidities, the need for long-term care, and a significant mortality risk. Consequently, close patient and physician communication throughout treatment is crucial. We aimed to review the literature examining patient and physician communication around critical aspects experienced by allogeneic survivors over the transplantation trajectory, such as the informed consent process, transplantation-related morbidity (eg, psychosocial distress, cognitive dysfunction, sexuality), adherence to treatment, and the use of complementary and alternative medicine, as well as interventions and strategies to improve patient and physician communication. We found a paucity of studies examining communication on these topics. Nevertheless, there is evidence of significant communication gaps around morbidities often experienced by allogeneic survivors, such as psychosocial distress, fatigue, and sexual functioning, due to both patient and physician barriers. Similarly, there is a concern that gaps also exist when addressing the informed consent process, cognitive dysfunction, adherence to treatment, and use of complementary and alternative medicine. The use and discussion of patient-reported outcome measures as part of clinical care is associated with patient and physician satisfaction with communication and better detection and management of symptoms. Although other strategies, such as decision aids, question prompt lists, and communication skills training, have improved communication in oncology, they have not been tested in the allogeneic setting. Future research is clearly needed to examine patient and physician communication in the allogeneic transplantation setting and test strategies to improve communication during this challenging treatment., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore adult medical oncology outpatients' understanding of and preferences for the format of health risk information., Methods: Two surveys, one assessing sociodemographic characteristics and a second survey examining perceptions of risk information., Results: Of the 361 (74%) consenting patients, 210 completed at least one question on risk communication. 17% to 65% of patients understood numeric risk information, depending on the format of the information. More than 50% of people interpreted a "very good" chance of remission as greater than 80%, greater than 90% or 100%. The most preferred format of information was in both words and numbers (38% to 43%) followed by words alone (28% to 30%)., Conclusion: Numeric risk information is understood by 17% to 65% of respondents, depending on the format. Interpretation of verbal risk information is highly variable, posing a risk of misunderstanding. Provision of information in both words and numbers may assist in aiding comprehension., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: GPs can play a central role in palliative care delivery. However, little is known about their views on what constitutes best practice care at the end of life. Aim: To explore, in a sample of Australian GPs, their perceptions of best practice palliative care and their ideal role in its delivery. Design & setting: A qualitative interview study of 25 GPs practising in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan locations in New South Wales, Australia. Method: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants had a mean age of 51 years, and had practised between 3 and 38 years (mean 19 years). Best practice palliative care was perceived to be proactive and responsive to a wide range of patient and family needs. Many participants indicated a need for relational continuity, which involves GPs establishing a care pathway from diagnosis to palliation, coordinating care across the pathway, and collaborating with other healthcare providers. A number of participants perceived palliative care as a natural extension of primary care and indicated that best practice palliative care mainly requires experiential knowledge and good communication skills, rather than specialised medical knowledge. Participants listed a number of communication strategies to offer patients and their families choice and ongoing negotiation about the recommended treatments. Conclusion: This study provides novel in-depth insights into GPs' perceptions of best practice palliative care. Future research should further investigate the identified features of care, and whether they can maximise the outcomes of patients and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing demand for primary care practitioners to play a key role in palliative care delivery. Given this, it is important to understand their perceptions of the barriers and enablers to optimal palliative care, and how commonly these are experienced. Aim: To explore the type and prevalence of barriers and enablers to palliative care provision reported by primary care practitioners. Design: A systematic review of quantitative data-based articles was conducted. Data sources: Medline, Embase and PsychINFO databases were searched for articles published between January 2007 and March 2019. Data synthesis: Abstracts were assessed against the eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 80 articles were blind coded by a second author. Data were extracted from eligible full-texts by one author and checked by a second. Given the heterogeneity in the included studies' methods and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common barriers related to bureaucratic procedures, communication between healthcare professionals, primary care practitioners' personal commitments, and their skills or confidence. The most common enablers related to education, nurses and trained respite staff to assist with care delivery, better communication between professionals, and templates to facilitate referral to out-of-hours services. Conclusion: A holistic approach addressing the range of barriers reported in this review is needed to support primary care providers to deliver palliative care. This includes better training and addressing barriers related to the interface between healthcare services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General Practitioners (GPs) often play an important role in caring for people at the end of life. While some international studies suggest that GPs experience a number of barriers to providing palliative care, little is known about views and experiences of GPs in Australia. This study explored Australian GPs' perceptions of barriers and enablers to the provision of palliative care and provides new insights into how to implement best practice care at the end of life. Methods: This was a qualitative study using 25 semi-structured phone interviews conducted with GPs practising in metropolitan and non-metropolitan New South Wales, Australia. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: GPs reported difficulties with palliative care provision due to i) the complex and often emotional nature of doctor-family-interaction; ii) a lack of evidence to guide care; and iii) the need to negotiate roles and responsibilities within the healthcare team. GPs listed a number of strategies to help deal with their workload and to improve communication processes between healthcare providers. These included appropriate scheduling of appointments, locally tailored mentoring and further education, and palliative care guidelines which more clearly outline the roles and responsibilities within multidisciplinary teams. GPs also noted the importance of online platforms to facilitate their communication with patients, their families and other healthcare providers, and to provide centralised access to locally tailored information on palliative care services. GPs suggested that non-government organisations could play an important role by raising awareness of the key role of GPs in palliative care provision and implementing an "official visitor" program, i.e. supporting volunteers to provide peer support or respite to people with palliative care needs and their families. Conclusions: This study offers new insights into strategies to overcome well documented barriers to palliative care provision in general practice and help implement optimal care at the end of life. The results suggest that researchers and policy makers should adopt a comprehensive approach to improving the provision of palliative care which tackles the array of barriers and enablers identified in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women at an increased risk of ovarian cancer often have to decide for or against the surgical removal of their healthy ovaries to reduce their cancer risk. This decision can be extremely difficult. Despite this, there is a lack of guidance on how to best support women in making this decision. Research that is guided by theoretical frameworks is needed to help inform clinical practice. We explored the decision-making process of women who are at an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer and had to decide for or against the removal of their ovaries.Methods: A qualitative study of 18 semi-structured interviews with women who have attended a cancer treatment centre or cancer counselling and information service in New South Wales, Australia. Data collection and analysis were informed by the Health Belief Model (HBM). Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis.Results: The paper describes women's decision making with the help of the four constructs of the HBM: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. The more anxious and susceptible women felt about getting ovarian cancer, the more likely they were to have an oophorectomy. Women's anxiety was often fuelled by witnessing family members suffer or die from cancer. Women considered a number of barriers and potential benefits to having the surgery but based their decision on "gut feeling" and experiential factors, rather than statistical risk assessment. Age, menopausal status and family commitments seemed to influence but not determine women's decisions on oophorectomy. Women reported a lack of decision support and appreciated if their doctor explained their treatment choice, provided personalised information, involved their general practitioner in the decision-making process and offered a second consultation to follow-up on any questions women might have.Conclusions: These findings suggest that deciding on whether to have an oophorectomy is a highly personal decision which can be described with the help of the HBM. The results also highlight the need for tailored decision support which could help improve doctor-patient-communication and patient-centred care related to risk reducing surgery in women at an increased risk of ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]