Search

Background: Advanced cancer significantly impacts patients' and family caregivers' quality of life. When patients and caregivers are supported concurrently as a dyad, the well-being of each person is optimized. Family, Outlook, Communication, Uncertainty, Symptom management (FOCUS) is a dyadic, psychoeducational intervention developed in the United States, shown to improve the well-being and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer and their primary caregivers. Originally, a nurse-delivered in-person intervention, FOCUS has been adapted into a self-administered web-based intervention for European delivery., Objective: The aims of this study are to (1) adapt FOCUS to the Australian context (FOCUSau); (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FOCUSau in improving the emotional well-being and self-efficacy of patients with advanced cancer and their primary caregiver relative to usual care control group; (3) compare health care use between the intervention and control groups; and (4) assess the acceptability, feasibility, and scalability of FOCUSau in order to inform future maintainable implementation of the intervention within the Australian health care system., Methods: FOCUS will be adapted prior to trial commencement, using an iterative stakeholder feedback process to create FOCUSau. To examine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of FOCUSau and assess its acceptability, feasibility, and scalability, we will undertake a hybrid type 1 implementation study consisting of a phase 3 (clinical effectiveness) trial along with an observational implementation study. Participants will include patients with cancer who are older than 18 years, able to access the internet, and able to identify a primary support person or caregiver who can also be approached for participation. The sample size consists of 173 dyads in each arm (ie, 346 dyads in total). Patient-caregiver dyad data will be collected at 3 time points-baseline (T 0 ) completed prerandomization; first follow-up (T 1 ; N=346) at 12 weeks post baseline; and second follow-up (T 2 ) at 24 weeks post baseline., Results: The study was funded in March 2022. Recruitment commenced in July 2024., Conclusions: If shown to be effective, this intervention will improve the well-being of patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, regardless of their location or current level of health care support., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06082128; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06082128., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/55252., (©Peter Hudson, Jill Francis, Joachim Cohen, Suzanne Kapp, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Lisa Beatty, Kathleen Gray, Michael Jefford, Ilona Juraskova, Laurel Northouse, Aline de Vleminck, Sungwon Chang, Patsy Yates, Sophy Athan, Shaira Baptista, Marlena Klaic, Jennifer Philip. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 13.08.2024.)

Background: Carers often assume key roles in cancer care. However, many carers report feeling disempowered and ill-equipped to support patients. Our group published evidence-based guidelines (the Triadic Oncology [TRIO] Guidelines) to improve oncology clinician engagement with carers and the management of challenging situations involving carers., Objective: To facilitate implementation of the TRIO Guidelines in clinical practice, we aimed to develop, iteratively refine, and conduct user testing of a suite of evidence-based and interactive web-based education modules for oncology clinicians (e-Triadic Oncology [eTRIO]), patients with cancer, and carers (eTRIO for Patients and Carers [eTRIO-pc]). These were designed to improve carer involvement, communication, and shared decision-making in the cancer management setting., Methods: The eTRIO education modules were based on extensive research, including systematic reviews, qualitative interviews, and consultation analyses. Guided by the person-based approach, module content and design were reviewed by an expert advisory group comprising academic and clinical experts (n=13) and consumers (n=5); content and design were continuously and iteratively refined. User experience testing (including "think-aloud" interviews and administration of the System Usability Scale [SUS]) of the modules was completed by additional clinicians (n=5), patients (n=3), and carers (n=3)., Results: The final clinician module comprises 14 sections, requires approximately 1.5 to 2 hours to complete, and covers topics such as carer-inclusive communication and practices; supporting carer needs; and managing carer dominance, anger, and conflicting patient-carer wishes. The usability of the module was rated by 5 clinicians, with a mean SUS score of 75 (SD 5.3), which is interpreted as good. Clinicians often desired information in a concise format, divided into small "snackable" sections that could be easily recommenced if they were interrupted. The carer module features 11 sections; requires approximately 1.5 hours to complete; and includes topics such as the importance of carers, carer roles during consultations, and advocating for the patient. The patient module is an adaptation of the relevant carer module sections, comprising 7 sections and requiring 1 hour to complete. The average SUS score as rated by 6 patients and carers was 78 (SD 16.2), which is interpreted as good. Interactive activities, clinical vignette videos, and reflective learning exercises are incorporated into all modules. Patient and carer consumer advisers advocated for empathetic content and tone throughout their modules, with an easy-to-read and navigable module interface., Conclusions: The eTRIO suite of modules were rigorously developed using a person-based design methodology to meet the unique information needs and learning requirements of clinicians, patients, and carers, with the goal of improving effective and supportive carer involvement in cancer consultations and cancer care., (©Rebekah Laidsaar-Powell, Sarah Giunta, Phyllis Butow, Rachael Keast, Bogda Koczwara, Judy Kay, Michael Jefford, Sandra Turner, Christobel Saunders, Penelope Schofield, Frances Boyle, Patsy Yates, Kate White, Annie Miller, Zoe Butt, Melanie Bonnaudet, Ilona Juraskova. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 17.04.2024.)

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) is increasingly used to personalize treatments, providing hope, but potentially disappointment, for patients. We explored psychological outcomes in patients with advanced, incurable cancer, after receiving CTGP results., Methods: Participants with advanced, incurable cancer (n = 560, mean age 56, 43% university educated) in this longitudinal substudy of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (MoST), completed questionnaires before and after receiving CGP results. MoST participants, recruited from Australian oncology clinics, undergo CTGP, and if there are actionable findings, are offered treatment in a related therapeutic trial if available., Results: Patients who received actionable results, (n = 356, 64%) had lower gene-related distress (MICRA) (p < 0.001) and Impact of Events scores (p = 0.039) than patients with non-actionable results. Those with actionable results offered ensured access to tailored treatment (n = 151) reported lower anxiety (p = 0.002) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01) and greater hope (p = 0.002) than those not offered. Positive attitudes towards uncertainty and higher self-efficacy for coping with results were associated with lower psychological distress and uncertainty, and higher hope and satisfaction with the decision to have CTGP (ps=0.001-0.047). Those with higher knowledge reported greater anxiety (p = 0.034)., Conclusion: Receiving a non-actionable CTGP result, or an actionable result without ensured access to treatment, may cause increased distress in advanced cancer patients. Coping style was also associated with distress., Practice Implications: Pre-testing assessment and counseling addressing attitudes toward uncertainty and self-efficacy, and post-CTGP result support for patients receiving a non-actionable result or who receive an actionable results without ensured access to treatment, may benefit patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. In conclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CGP) offers hope for personalized treatment for cancer patients when other treatment options have been exhausted. However, receipt of nonactionable or ambiguous results could be an ongoing source of distress. We investigated patterns of hope, anxiety, depression, and CGP-specific anxiety in advanced cancer patients after receiving CGP results and 2-3 months later., Method: Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal psychosocial substudy, embedded in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program, and had advanced solid cancers of any histological type with sufficient and accessible tissue for CGP. At T0 (before receiving CGP results), 1,431 participants completed sociodemographic, disease and psychosocial measures. At T1 (1-4 weeks after receiving CGP results) and T2 (2-3 months post-T1), 374 participants completed psychological outcome measures. Predictors of outcomes at T2 were identified using multinomial logistic regression., Results: Approximately 75% of participants did not experience significant hopelessness or distress at T1 and T2. Hope decreased by T2, yet general anxiety and CGP-specific anxiety also decreased. Receiving actionable results did not impact psychological outcomes at T2. At T2, lower hope, and higher anxiety, depression and CGP-specific anxiety were associated with lower self-efficacy. Psychological and demographic factors (age, socioeconomic status, language, medical occupation, urban living, family history of cancer) independently predicted one or more psychological trajectories. Worse health status and perceived susceptibility to cancer progression predicted hope and anxiety trajectories., Conclusion: Further research on interventions to best support patients undergoing CGP with high anxiety, hopelessness, fear of cancer progression, and poorer health is urgently needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes., Methods: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors., Results: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02)., Conclusions: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes., Practice Implications: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first-degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first-degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade-off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS., (© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Introduction: Fear of cancer progression (FCP) impacts quality of life and is a prevalent unmet need in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, particularly as treatment options are reduced. We aimed to identify longitudinal patterns in FCP over 6 months in patients with advanced cancer receiving comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their correlates., Methods: Patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic disease (∼70% rare cancers) receiving or post their last line of standard therapy completed questionnaires at T0 (prior to CTGP), T1 (immediately post CTGP results) and T2 (2 months later)., Results: High stable (N = 52; 7.3%) and low/moderate stable (N = 56; 7.8%) FCP patterns over time typified the largest participant groups (N = 721). Those with an immediately actionable variant versus a non-actionable variant (p = 0.045), with higher FCP (p < 0.001), and lower Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being (FACIT-Sp) scores (p = 0.006) at T0, had higher FCP at T1. Those with higher FCP at T0 (p < 0.001) and at T1 (p < 0.001), lower FACIT-Sp scores at T1 (p = 0.001), lower education (p = 0.031) and female gender (p = 0.027) had higher FCP at T2., Discussion: Routine screening for psychological/spiritual characteristics in those about to undergo CTGP may help to identify patients who may benefit from closer monitoring and provision of psychosocial support. Future studies should explore interventions to best address FCP in this vulnerable group, as interventions assessed to date have almost all addressed patients with curative cancers or newly diagnosed advanced disease., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To determine the reported effect of online communication skills training (CST) on health professional (HP) communication skills and patient care outcomes in cancer and palliative care., Methods: Primary research published in English between January 2003 and April 2019 was identified in bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase and Proquest (Prospero: CRD42018088681). An integrated mixed-method approach included studies describing a CST intervention and its effect, for cancer or palliative care HPs, delivered online or blended with an online component. Included studies' outcomes were categorised then findings were stratified by an evaluation framework and synthesised in an effect direction plot. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's tools., Results: Nineteen included studies (five randomised controlled trials, 11 pre-post, two post-test and one qualitative study) evaluated a CST intervention (median duration = 3.75 h; range 0.66-96 h) involving 1116 HPs, 422 students and 732 patients. Most interventions taught communication skills for specific scenarios and approximately half were delivered solely online and did not involve role plays. Online CST improved HPs' self-assessed communication skills (three studies, 215 participants), confidence (four studies, 533 participants), and objective knowledge (five studies, 753 participants). While few studies evaluated patient outcomes, CST may benefit observed communication skills in care settings (two studies, 595 participants)., Conclusions: Online CST benefits oncology HPs' subjectively-reported communication skills and confidence, and objective knowledge. Translation to patient outcomes requires further investigation. The quality of research varied and few studies had a control group. We recommend improvements to study design, evaluation and implementation., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This study explored family communication about undertaking genomic sequencing, and intentions to communicate pertinent heritable results to family members., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with cancer patients (n = 53) and their relatives (n = 20) who underwent germline genome sequencing or molecular tumor testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis., Results: Key themes relevant to family communication about undertaking sequencing included: perceiving family member interest, delaying discussion until results were received, having shared capacity to understand and cope, and having open communication in the family. Intended communication subsequent to receiving results was affected by: disease severity, risk management options, degree of closeness in the family, sense of responsibility, and potential adverse impacts on family. Resource and support needs varied based on the complexity of test results, health professionals' availability, and disease severity. Unique subthemes were identified for specific subgroups., Conclusion: Current findings support the need to assess the impact and resource needs specific to each clinical application of genomic sequencing., Practice Implications: Increasingly sophisticated and complex clinical genomic sequencing warrants development of family-centered interventions and resources to facilitate preference-sensitive communication about genomic sequencing, including disseminating relevant information to family members., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest BM has a remunerated consultant role with the company AstraZeneca with respect to an unrelated project. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to discern preferences for receiving somatic molecular profiling (MP) results in cancer patients who have given consent to undergo testing., Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore patients' views on which MP results they would like to receive and why. Advanced cancer patients (n = 1299) completed questionnaires after giving consent to participate in a parent genomics study and undergoing MP. A subset of patients (n = 20) participated in qualitative interviews., Results: Almost all (96%) participants were interested in receiving results which would direct cancer treatment (ie, were actionable). A smaller majority wanted to access results which were not actionable (64%) or were variants of unknown significance (60%). Most (86%) were interested in finding out about germline findings, though not as a priority. Themes identified in interview data were: (a) Cancer is the focus; (b) Trust in clinicians; and (c) Respect for a right not to know., Conclusions: The majority of advanced cancer patients undergoing MP prioritised results which would lead to treatment options. They trusted their oncologists to help them navigate the results return process. While there was interest in knowing about other results, this was a lesser priority. Nevertheless, given high levels of interest in receiving all results, ethical aspects of not providing uninformative results requires further research, including a consideration of patient rationales for desiring this information and what health professionals can and should do to support patients in the absence of meaningful information being available., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Little is known about knowledge of, and attitudes towards, genome sequencing (GS) among individuals with a personal history of cancer who decide to undergo GS. This qualitative study aimed to investigate baseline knowledge and attitudes among individuals previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely genetic origin who have consented to GS., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants (n=20) from the longitudinal Psychosocial Issues in Genomic Oncology study, within a month of consenting to GS and prior to receiving any results. Participants were adults with a cancer of likely genetic aetiology who are undertaking GS as part of a larger genetic study., Results: Analysis identified three main themes: limited understanding of genomics; multifactorial motivation; and complex decision making. While motivations such as obtaining health information about self and family appear to be the main drivers for undertaking GS, these motivations are sometimes based on limited knowledge of the accuracy and utility of GS, creating unrealistic expectations. This in turn can prolong the deliberation process and lead to ongoing decisional conflict., Conclusion: Understanding the degree and nature of patient understanding of GS, as well as their attitudes and decision-making processes, will enable healthcare professionals to better manage patient expectations and appropriately engage and support patients to make an informed decision when pursuing GS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BM has a remunerated consultant role with the company Astrazeneca with respect to an unrelated project. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Use of tumor molecular profiling (MP) is entering routine clinical practice; however, little is known about how much and why patients value MP., Objective: To examine the perceived value of MP to patients with advanced cancer and factors associated with perceived value., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey that included willingness-to-pay trade-off scenarios was administered to participants after consent and before MP. A total of 777 participants (94% response rate) were recruited from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Eligible patients had advanced solid cancers of any histologic type, were receiving or had completed their last line of effective therapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 to 3, and had sufficient accessible tissue for MP. The participants were recruited between October 24, 2017, and March 12, 2019, and data analysis was conducted from March 13 to April 14, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Willingness to pay for MP was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios varying in the actionable return rate (1%, 20%, or 40%) and cost (A$0, A$300 [US$210], A$1000 [US $700], A$3000 [US $2100], or A$10 000 [US $7000]). Ordinal regressions were used to explore factors associated with willingness to have and pay for MP., Results: Of 777 participants (405 women [52%]; mean [SD] age, 55.47 [14.26] years), 689 patients (89%) would have MP for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Fifty-six patients (7%) would require at least a 20% return rate and 11 patients (1%) would require at least a 40% return rate. Fifteen patients (2%) consistently chose not to have the test; 6 participants (0.8%) had missing values on this item. Participants were willing to pay a median of A$1000 if the actionable return rate was 1% and A$3000 for an actionable return rate of 20% to 40%. Of 762 individuals who agreed to testing, 482 patients (64%) were consistently unwilling to pay A$10 000, regardless of the actionable return rate. Patients born in Australia or New Zealand were more likely to want MP (eg, participants born in South Asia had an ordered odds for the tipping point of 7.74 [95% CI, 1.67-36.05; P = .009] times higher than Australian- and/or New Zealand-born participants). Patients born in Australia or New Zealand were also more willing to pay A$1000 or A$3000 (eg, participants born in Western Europe had an ordered odds for the tipping point for paying A$1000 of 1.74 [95% CI, 1.01-3.00; P = .048] times higher than Australian- and/or New Zealand-born participants). People with a medical- or science-related occupation and with more negative attitudes toward uncertainty were more likely to pay A$10 000 (eg, A$10 000 tipping point-ordered odds of participants with a medical- or science-related occupation was 0.49 [95% CI, 0.7-0.87; P = .02] times that of participants without a medical- or science-related occupation)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found apparent high interest in but lower willingness to pay for MP among patients with advanced cancer. Ability to pay may limit access to MP. Ongoing societal debate is required to establish the value of MP and whether subsidization is needed to ensure equity of access.

Aim: This study explored the attitudes of patients with advanced cancer towards MTP and return of results, prior to undergoing genomic testing within a research program., Methods: Participants were recruited as part of the longitudinal PiGeOn (Psychosocial Issues in Genomics in Oncology) study involving patients with advanced/metastatic solid cancer who had exhausted therapeutic options and who were offered MTP in order to identify cognate therapies. Twenty patients, selected by purposive sampling, were interviewed around the time they gave consent to MTP. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Themes identified in the transcripts were cross-validated via qualitative responses to the PiGeOn study survey (n = 569; 63%)., Results: All interviewed participants gave consent to MTP without reservation. Three themes were identified and further supported via the survey responses: (1) Obvious agreement to participate, primarily because of desire for new treatments and altruism. (2) The black box - while participant knowledge of genomics was generally poor, faith in their oncologists and the scientific process encouraged them to proceed with testing; and (3) Survival is the priority - receiving treatment to prolong life was the priority for all participants, and other issues such as identification of a germline variant were generally seen as ancillary., Conclusion: Having advanced cancer seemed to abrogate any potential concerns about MTP. Participants valued the research for varied reasons, but this was secondary to their priority to survive. While no negative attitudes toward MTP emerged, limitations in understanding of genomics were evident.

Objective: Engaging in shared decision-making may be particularly difficult for adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAs), possibly because of lower levels of health literacy. Family members of AYAs are likely to support decision-making about their healthcare by contributing to health literacy skills/practices; however, the nature of this process is unclear. This systematic review synthesized qualitative studies that explored the process of decision-making and characterized how AYA healthcare information is shared, from the perspective of the AYA and their family members., Methods: Electronic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were conducted in May 2018. Peer-reviewed studies discussing the decision-making process in AYAs and/or their families were eligible for inclusion. Findings were analyzed thematically using Framework analysis., Results: Seven thousand two hundred seventy-three studies were screened, and 14 eligible studies were included. The synthesized themes aligned with the Supported Health Literacy Pathway model 3 in that AYAs draw on their family members' knowledge, skills, and practices to generate informed options and make shared decisions. Families of AYAs were found to be involved throughout all stages of decision-making. The use of health literacy skills was also found to be distributed in families, such that family members of AYAs mediate access to knowledge and use of health information in the decision-making process., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that health literacy is a dynamic and transactional process and provide clinicians, researchers, and other stakeholders with a framework to foster AYA engagement in decision-making., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Family caregivers can, at times, add complexity to clinical encounters. Difficult family caregivers and dynamics may: derail consultation communication, reduce patient autonomy, and compromise effective clinical care. A paucity of practical strategies guiding effective clinician-family communication exists. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the first comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines (the TRIO guidelines) for oncology physicians and nurses to better manage several complex/challenging situations involving family members., Methods: TRIO Guidelines were based on a comprehensive review of literature, relevant guidelines, and feedback from an expert advisory group (n = 10). Draft guidelines underwent two rounds of evaluation via an online Delphi consensus process involving international experts (n = 35)., Results: Guidelines incorporate topic areas, strategies, and sub-strategies on managing challenging family involvement (7 topics). Example wording, behaviours and level of evidence are provided., Conclusion: Challenging triadic interactions require skillful navigation, and the TRIO Guidelines provide clear, specific, and evidence-based strategies for clinicians to utilise in these potentially stressful encounters. Training based on these guidelines may improve both patient care and clinician confidence., Practice Implications: Implementation of these guidelines into medical/nursing curricula and as a component of continuing professional development programs will likely be highly beneficial., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Family caregivers regularly attend medical consultations and are often involved in decision-making; however, there are few practical strategies to guide effective communication for the clinician-patient-family trio. We aimed to develop and evaluate the first comprehensive guidelines for oncology physicians and nurses, on how to positively and effectively involve family caregivers of adult patients in consultations and patient care (TRIO Guidelines-1) and how to manage challenging interactions with family caregivers (TRIO Guidelines-2)., Methods: The TRIO Guidelines were based on a comprehensive literature review and input from an expert advisory group (n = 10). They underwent two rounds of formal evaluation via an online Delphi consensus process involving international experts (n = 35), and a subset were piloted with 24 breast cancer clinicians in a workshop format., Results: TRIO Guidelines-1 incorporate strategies and sub-strategies on facilitating collaborative and effective family involvement (6 topics). Example wording, behaviours, and level of evidence are provided throughout. All 24 clinicians rated the guidelines as helpful after the pilot workshop., Conclusion: These guidelines will be a useful educational tool for clinicians and medical/nursing students., Practice Implications: By equipping clinicians with strategies to facilitate effective and collaborative family engagement, the TRIO Guidelines have the potential to transform communication in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advances in genomics offer promise for earlier detection or prevention of cancer, by personalisation of medical care tailored to an individual's genomic risk status. However genome sequencing can generate an unprecedented volume of results for the patient to process with potential implications for their families and reproductive choices. This paper describes a protocol for a study (PiGeOn) that aims to explore how patients and their blood relatives experience germline genomic sequencing, to help guide the appropriate future implementation of genome sequencing into routine clinical practice., Methods: We have designed a mixed-methods, prospective, cohort sub-study of a germline genomic sequencing study that targets adults with cancer suggestive of a genetic aetiology. One thousand probands and 2000 of their blood relatives will undergo germline genomic sequencing as part of the parent study in Sydney, Australia between 2016 and 2020. Test results are expected within12-15 months of recruitment. For the PiGeOn sub-study, participants will be invited to complete surveys at baseline, three months and twelve months after baseline using self-administered questionnaires, to assess the experience of long waits for results (despite being informed that results may not be returned) and expectations of receiving them. Subsets of both probands and blood relatives will be purposively sampled and invited to participate in three semi-structured qualitative interviews (at baseline and each follow-up) to triangulate the data. Ethical themes identified in the data will be used to inform critical revisions of normative ethical concepts or frameworks., Discussion: This will be one of the first studies internationally to follow the psychosocial impact on probands and their blood relatives who undergo germline genome sequencing, over time. Study results will inform ongoing ethical debates on issues such as informed consent for genomic sequencing, and informing participants and their relatives of specific results. The study will also provide important outcome data concerning the psychological impact of prolonged waiting for germline genomic sequencing. These data are needed to ensure that when germline genomic sequencing is introduced into standard clinical settings, ethical concepts are embedded, and patients and their relatives are adequately prepared and supported during and after the testing process.

Background: Genomic sequencing in cancer (both tumour and germline), and development of therapies targeted to tumour genetic status, hold great promise for improvement of patient outcomes. However, the imminent introduction of genomics into clinical practice calls for better understanding of how patients value, experience, and cope with this novel technology and its often complex results. Here we describe a protocol for a novel mixed-methods, prospective study (PiGeOn) that aims to examine patients' psychosocial, cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to tumour genomic profiling and to integrate a parallel critical ethical analysis of returning results., Methods: This is a cohort sub-study of a parent tumour genomic profiling programme enrolling patients with advanced cancer. One thousand patients will be recruited for the parent study in Sydney, Australia from 2016 to 2019. They will be asked to complete surveys at baseline, three, and five months. Primary outcomes are: knowledge, preferences, attitudes and values. A purposively sampled subset of patients will be asked to participate in three semi-structured interviews (at each time point) to provide deeper data interpretation. Relevant ethical themes will be critically analysed to iteratively develop or refine normative ethical concepts or frameworks currently used in the return of genetic information., Discussion: This will be the first Australian study to collect longitudinal data on cancer patients' experience of tumour genomic profiling. Findings will be used to inform ongoing ethical debates on issues such as how to effectively obtain informed consent for genomic profiling return results, distinguish between research and clinical practice and manage patient expectations. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods will provide comprehensive and critical data on how patients cope with 'actionable' and 'non-actionable' results. This information is needed to ensure that when tumour genomic profiling becomes part of routine clinical care, ethical considerations are embedded, and patients are adequately prepared and supported during and after receiving results., Trial Registration: Not required for this sub-study, parent trial registration ACTRN12616000908437 .

Objective: Family caregivers are regularly involved in cancer consultations and treatment decision-making (DM). Yet there is limited conceptual description of caregiver influence/involvement in DM. To address this, an empirically-grounded conceptual framework of triadic DM (TRIO Framework) and corresponding graphical aid (TRIO Triangle) were developed., Methods: Jabareen's model for conceptual framework development informed multiple phases of development/validation, incorporation of empirical research and theory, and iterative revisions by an expert advisory group., Results: Findings coalesced into six empirically-grounded conceptual insights: i) Caregiver influence over a decision is variable amongst different groups; ii) Caregiver influence is variable within the one triad over time; iii) Caregivers are involved in various ways in the wider DM process; iv) DM is not only amongst three, but can occur among wider social networks; v) Many factors may affect the form and extent of caregiver involvement in DM; vi) Caregiver influence over, and involvement in, DM is linked to their everyday involvement in illness care/management., Conclusion: The TRIO Framework/Triangle may serve as a useful guide for future empirical, ethical and/or theoretical work., Practice Implications: This Framework can deepen clinicians's and researcher's understanding of the diverse and varying scope of caregiver involvement and influence in DM., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Family members (FMs) regularly attend cancer consultations with patients, may assume an array of roles (e.g. emotional, informational) and their involvement may result in benefits and/or challenges. Little is currently known about how oncology health professionals (HPs) view FMs who accompany a patient in consultations. This study aimed to explore the attitudes and practices of Australian oncologists and oncology nurses regarding family involvement in consultations. Eleven oncologists and 10 nurses from a range of subspecialties and tumour streams participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analysed using framework analysis methods. Five relevant themes were identified: (1) the varied and dynamic nature of family roles during consultations; (2) positivity towards FMs; (3) the benefits of family involvement to the FM themselves; (4) current HP practices to facilitate positive family involvement; and (5) the challenges of family involvement in consultations and HP practices to manage them. Overall, participants held mostly positive attitudes towards family involvement. Although they identified a number of challenges which can arise when family are involved, many noted these situations are the exception, that there are strategies which can help to overcome the challenges, and that the benefits of family involvement typically outweigh the costs., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Family members (FMs) often provide support to patients, regularly attend cancer consultations and are often involved in medical decision-making. Limited research has been conducted to date to understand patients' and FMs' perceptions about family involvement in cancer consultations. Therefore, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the attitudes and experiences of Australian cancer patients and FMs regarding (1) family attendance at consultations, (2) family roles in consultations and (3) the challenges of family involvement., Methods: Thirty patients and 33 FMs, recruited through either a tertiary metropolitan oncology clinic or national cancer patient advocacy group, participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analysed using Framework analysis methods., Results: Four relevant themes were identified: (1) negotiating family involvement, (2) attitudes towards the roles FMs assume, (3) challenges of family involvement and (4) family-clinician interactions. Overall, patients appreciated family involvement and valued FMs' provision of emotional and informational support, and FMs also found benefit from participating in consultations. Some patients appreciated their FM assuming the role of 'messenger' between the consultation and extended family. However, a number of challenges were also reported by patients (e.g. maintaining privacy, mismatched patient-family information needs) and FMs (e.g. emotional toll of supportive roles, negative behaviours of clinicians towards FMs)., Conclusions: FMs appear to make valuable contributions to cancer consultations, and their presence can benefit both the patient and the FM themselves in many ways. However, for some FMs, attending consultations can be challenging. Study findings point to the need for psychosocial support addressing FMs' needs and the development of communication strategies for oncology clinicians to positively engage with FMs. Further research is needed in these areas.

Objective: Little is known about how family are involved in cancer treatment decision-making. This study aimed to qualitatively explore Australian oncology clinicians', patients', and family members' attitudes towards, and experiences of, family involvement in decision-making., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 cancer patients, 33 family members, 10 oncology nurses and 11 oncologists. Framework analysis methods were used., Results: Three main themes were uncovered: (i) how family are involved in the decision-making process: specific behaviours of family across 5 (extended) decision-making stages; (ii) attitudes towards family involvement in the decision-making process: balancing patient authority with the rights of the family; and (iii) factors influencing family involvement: patient, family, cultural, relationship, and decision., Conclusion: This study highlighted many specific behaviours of family throughout the decision-making process, the complex participant attitudes toward retaining patient authority whilst including the family, and insight into influencing factors. These findings will inform a conceptual framework describing family involvement in decision-making., Practice Implications: Clinicians could ascertain participant preferences and remain open to the varying forms of family involvement in decision-making. Given the important role of family in the decision-making process, family inclusive consultation strategies are needed., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Family members (FMs) regularly attend oncology consultations. However, limited studies have assessed actual behaviours of oncologists, patients and FMs - particularly during decision-making. The current study aimed the following: (i) to rigorously develop a family (kin) interaction coding system (KINcode) capturing communication and decision-making behaviours of FMs and family-relevant behaviours of oncologists and patients and (ii) to apply KINcode to initial oncology consultations., Methods: The 80-item KINcode system was developed and applied to 72 transcripts of audiotaped medical/radiation oncology consultations including an FM, collected as part of two previous studies., Results: The role of the FM varied considerably within the one encounter, with 33% of FMs assuming three or more roles across the four consultation stages. Whilst most FMs asked treatment decision questions (71%), a minority engaged in other behaviours such as prompting patient questions (4%) or providing information relevant to the decision to the oncologist (18%). Although oncologists rarely initiated interaction with FMs such as in rapport building (18%) or asking FMs questions (25%), they were typically fully responsive to FM questions (90%). Many patients asked their FM a question (42%), but few elicited the FM's decision preferences (4%)., Conclusions: This study provides novel insights into the complex nature of family involvement. The findings highlight potentially positive FM-focused consultation behaviours such as oncologist responsiveness to family questions and potential areas for improvement such as rapport building, invitation of questions and validation of the family's role. Family-specific communication skills training should be considered in medical student and professional education settings. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: The literature on cancer support groups supports the provision of ongoing education and training for cancer support group leaders, with evidence suggesting that more skilled and experienced leaders create better outcomes for group members. To address support and training needs reported by leaders, three novel interventions were developed and pilot-tested. These included a leaders' website and discussion forum, DVD and manual, and a 2-day training workshop., Methods: The interventions were developed using a combination of literature review, expert consensus, and consumer feedback. A convenience sample of ten leaders pilot-tested the Website and discussion forum. Using a mixed-method approach, evaluation of the workshop and the DVD and manual was conducted with 35 leaders., Results: Overall, satisfaction with all aspects of the Website and discussion forum was high. Analysis of the quantitative data revealed extremely high satisfaction with the workshop and DVD and manual. The qualitative responses of workshop participants further supported the quantitative findings with enhanced knowledge, understanding, and confidence reported by leaders., Conclusions: All three interventions exhibited a high degree of user acceptance, regardless of the skill or experience of the cancer support group leader. The overall positive findings from the evaluation of the leader Website and discussion forum, the DVD and manual, and the workshop for cancer support group leaders provides evidence to support more rigorous evaluation of these resources in a randomized controlled trial.

Rewards derived from leading a cancer support group are poorly understood yet may be crucial to offset the challenges and difficulties of this role. This study sought to obtain the views of a representative sample of Australian cancer support group leaders (CSGLs) concerning the perceived rewards and challenges of their role. All CSGLs identified by the state-based Cancer Councils were invited to participate by postal questionnaire. Qualitative methods were used to analyze responses to open-ended questions concerning rewards and challenges. A total of 300 CSGLs returned the questionnaire (response rate = 66%) with 272 providing qualitative comments. Four parallel themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (i) Personal, (ii) Relationship, (iii) Group, and (iv) Community rewards and challenges. These were integrated into a model depicting key positive and negative aspects of the CSGL's role, to provide direction for future training and ongoing support of CSGLs.