Search

Objectives: Hard-to-treat childhood cancers are those where standard treatment options do not exist and the prognosis is poor. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are responsible for communicating with families about prognosis and complex experimental treatments. We aimed to identify HCPs' key challenges and skills required when communicating with families about hard-to-treat cancers and their perceptions of communication-related training. Methods: We interviewed Australian HCPs who had direct responsibilities in managing children/adolescents with hard-to-treat cancer within the past 24 months. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: We interviewed 10 oncologists, 7 nurses, and 3 social workers. HCPs identified several challenges for communication with families including: balancing information provision while maintaining realistic hope; managing their own uncertainty; and nurses and social workers being underutilized during conversations with families, despite widespread preferences for multidisciplinary teamwork. HCPs perceived that making themselves available to families, empowering them to ask questions, and repeating information helped to establish and maintain trusting relationships with families. Half the HCPs reported receiving no formal training for communicating prognosis and treatment options with families of children with hard-to-treat cancers. Nurses, social workers, and less experienced oncologists supported the development of communication training resources, more so than more experienced oncologists. Significance of results: Resources are needed which support HCPs to communicate with families of children with hard-to-treat cancers. Such resources may be particularly beneficial for junior oncologists and other HCPs during their training, and they should aim to prepare them for common challenges and foster greater multidisciplinary collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) are high‐level policy documents that prioritise actions to be taken to improve cancer control activities. As the number of cancer survivors grows globally, there is an urgent need to assess whether and how psychosocial care across the cancer care continuum is included in NCCPs. This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which NCCPs referenced psycho‐oncology care for cancer survivors in the post‐treatment phase. Methods: NCCPs were obtained from the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) portal (in November 2021) and reviewed in two phases. In Phase 1, all available NCCPs were screened to determine whether they mentioned psycho‐oncology or survivorship. In Phase 2, reviewers extracted data from the NCCPs identified in Phase 1 on the degree that each plan articulated objectives/goals to improve psychosocial care in the post‐treatment survivorship phase. Results: We screened 237 NCCPs. Of these, initial potential reference to psycho‐oncology and survivorship content were identified in 97 plans (41%). In Phase 1, 57/97 (59%) had reference to psycho‐oncology or survivorship content within defined criteria. In Phase 2, 27/97 (28%) had little mention of psycho‐oncology specifically in survivorship, 47/97 (48%) had some (general or brief) mention, and the remaining 23/97 (24%) had substantial content/specific sections and clearly articulated goals and/or objectives. Common goals for improving psychosocial care in the post‐treatment period included building capacity of healthcare professionals, implementing rehabilitation models, and increasing the utilisation of community services. Conclusions: Most NCCPs did not reference psycho‐oncology and only one‐quarter contained clear objectives specifically in the post‐treatment survivorship phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]