Search

: Objective: To examine general practitioners’ views about how health assessments for older people should be conducted. Methods: General practitioners were randomly sampled from a national database of medical practitioners and invited to complete a survey. Survey items explored general practitioners’ views about essential components of a 75+ Health Assessment and who should assess each component, consultation time, use of standardised templates and tools, and home visits. Results: Overall, 185 (19.2%) general practitioners participated. Of 61 items presented, 24 were rated ‘essential’ by ≥70% of practitioners, with an average estimated consultation time of 65 minutes. Of the 24 essential items, it was perceived that 21 could be assessed by either a general practitioner or clinic nurse. Most practitioners indicated a standardised template (86%) and standardised tools for complex issues (79%) should be used, and home visits conducted (75%). Conclusions: General practitioners agreed on 24 items as essential for every health assessment, with assessments estimated to take more than one hour. Implications for public health: Increases to remuneration for prolonged assessments or mechanisms for improving efficiency and quality of assessments are needed. Acceptable mechanisms may include standardised patient‐reported tools, standardised templates and the use of non‐medical staff to assist with assessments., Globally, many countries are projected to experience ageing populations.[sup.1] In Australia, approximately 15% of the population was aged 65 or older in 2017, with this figure expected to rise to [...]

Background: The 75+ health assessment has been identified as a suitable trigger to introduce advance care planning (ACP) to general practice patients. Australian general practitioners (GPs) were surveyed to explore their perceptions, attitudes and practices in introducing ACP during 75+ health assessments. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of Australian GPs covering their personal, professional and workplace characteristics, their current practice regarding ACP within a 75+ health assessment, and their attitude towards ACP. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse the factors associated with routinely discussing ACP as part of the 75+ health assessment. Results: A total of 185 (19.2%) out of 964 eligible GPs returned a completed survey. Most GPs reported that patients interested in ACP were supported by the GPs or the practice nurse. Two factors, (1) attitude that ACP is an essential component of the 75+ health assessment, and (2) regional or rural location of the practice, had a statistically and clinically significant association with the GP's self-reported discussion of ACP during 75+ health assessments. Conclusions: GPs showed a high level of support and involvement in discussing ACP during 75+ health assessments. ACP support during 75+ health assessments was often provided directly by the GP or via the practice nurse. Given the international evidence that ACP training programs improve skills and knowledge, and foster positive attitudes towards ACP, there is an important need to continue funding ACP training programs for GPs and practice nurses. The 75+ health assessment has been identified as a suitable trigger to introduce advance care planning (ACP) to general practice patients. Our cross-sectional survey of 185 Australian GPs showed that (1) most patients interested in ACP were supported by general practices, and (2) the attitude that ACP is an essential component of the 75+ health assessment and regional/rural location were associated with GPs' discussion of ACP during 75+ health assessments. More support and funding may be required to follow up on these important discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (mini-MAC) is a well-recognised, popular measure of coping in psycho-oncology and assesses five cancer-specific coping strategies. It has been suggested that these five subscales could be grouped to form the over-arching adaptive and maladptive coping subscales to facilitate the interpretation and clinical application of the scale. Despite the popularity of the mini-MAC, few studies have examined its psychometric properties among long-term cancer survivors, and further validation of the mini-MAC is needed to substantiate its use with the growing population of survivors. Therefore, this study examined the psychometric properties and dimensionality of the mini-MAC in a sample of long-term cancer survivors using Rasch analysis. Methods RUMM 2030 was used to analyse the mini-MAC data (n=851). Separate Rasch analyses were conducted for each of the original mini-MAC subscales as well as the over-arching adaptive and maladaptive coping subscales to examine summary and individual model fit statistics, person separation index (PSI), response format, local dependency, targeting, item bias (or differential item functioning -DIF), and dimensionality. Results For the fighting spirit, fatalism, and helplessness-hopelessness subscales, a revised three-point response format seemed more optimal than the original four-point response. To achieve model fit, items were deleted from four of the five subscales – Anxious Preoccupation items 7, 25, and 29; Cognitive Avoidance items 11 and 17; Fighting Spirit item 18; and Helplessness-Hopelessness items 16 and 20. For those subscales with sufficient items, analyses supported unidimensionality. Combining items to form the adaptive and maladaptive subscales was partially supported. Conclusions The original five subscales required item deletion and/or rescaling to improve goodness of fit to the Rasch model. While evidence was found for overarching subscales of adaptive and maladaptive coping, extensive modifications were necessary to achieve this result. Further exploration and validation of over-arching subscales assessing adaptive and maladaptive coping is necessary with cancer survivors.

Abstract Background An understanding of the nature and magnitude of the impact of cancer is critical to planning how best to deliver supportive care to the growing population of cancer survivors whose need for care may span many years. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of and factors associated with moderate to high level unmet supportive care needs among adult cancer survivors six months after diagnosis. Methods A population-based sample of adult cancer survivors diagnosed with one of the eight most incident cancers in Australia was recruited from two state-based cancer registries. Data for 1323 survivors were obtained by self-report questionnaire and linkage with cancer registry data. Unmet needs were assessed by the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34). The data were examined using chi-square and multiple logistic regression analyses. Results A total of 444 (37%) survivors reported at least one ‘moderate to high’ level unmet need and 496 (42%) reported ‘no need’ for help. Moderate to high level unmet needs were most commonly reported in the psychological (25%) and physical aspects of daily living (20%) domains. The five most frequently endorsed items of moderate to high unmet need were concerns about the worries of those close to them (15%), fears about the cancer spreading (14%), not being able to do the things they used to do (13%), uncertainty about the future (13%) and lack of energy/tiredness (12%). Survivors’ psychological characteristics were the strongest indicators of unmet need, particularly caseness for anxious preoccupation coping which was associated (OR = 2.2-5.9) with unmet need for help across all domains. Conclusions Unmet supportive care needs are prevalent among a subgroup of survivors transitioning from active treatment to survivorship, although lower than previously reported. In addition to coping support, valuable insight about how to prevent or address survivors’ unmet needs could be gained by examining the substantial proportion of survivors who report no unmet needs.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Anxiety and depression among long-term survivors of cancer in Australia: results of a population-based survey," by A. W. Boyes et al, published in a 2009 supplementary issue.

People whom the author would like to thank for reviewing papers for the periodical from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 is presented including Robin Jones, Moran Amit, and Ruben Mesa.

The article lists of periodical reviewers include Kristen Abbott-Anderson, Nnenaya Agochukwu, and Bree Aguilar.