Psychosocial well-being of brain cancer patients and support persons: A mapping review of study types over time.

INTRODUCTION: This review examined the: (1) number of publications exploring psychosocial outcomes of adults with brain cancer and/or support persons between 1999 and 2019 and whether there has been a change in the type of research over time; and (2) proportion of intervention studies meeting Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) research design criteria. METHODS: Embase, The Cochrane Library, Medline and PsycINFO databases were electronically searched January 1999 to December 2019. Articles were examined against inclusion/exclusion criteria and coded into measurement, descriptive or intervention categories. Intervention studies were assessed against the EPOC design criteria. RESULTS: 220 eligible publications were identified. The number of total publications significantly increased by an average of 1 each year (95%CI = 0.7-1.3; p < 0.001). There was no significant change in the proportion of publications by study type across three time periods. Descriptive research represented the majority within each time period. Of the 17 intervention studies, only 7(41%) met EPOC design criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Published literature on brain cancer psychosocial outcomes has increased significantly. However, descriptive research dominates research output. To increase high-level knowledge that can guide psychosocial care of people with brain cancer, there is a need to undertake methodologically rigorous intervention trials.

Brain cancer patient and support persons' experiences of psychosocial care: a mapping of research outputs.

BACKGROUND: People with brain cancer and their support persons (SPs) are critical sources of information on the components of care that contribute to psychosocial outcomes. AIMS: To determine the proportion of studies that examined (1) at least one of 14 nominated components of psychosocial cancer care and (2) more than one component of care. METHODS: Medline, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Embase were electronically searched for publications from January 1999 to December 2019. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were coded according to the number and type of psychosocial care components assessed from 14 listed components, and whether patient and/or SPs' views about care were elicited. RESULTS: Of the 113 included publications, 61 publications included patient-reported data only (54%), 27 included both patient and SP-reported data (24%) and 25 included SP-reported data only (22%). Most assessed a single component of care (77% of patient-reported and 71% of SP-reported). No publications assessed all 14 components. The "Psychosocial" component was the most frequently assessed component of care for patient-reported (n = 80/88, 91%) and SP-reported publications (n = 46/52, 88%). CONCLUSIONS: Publications reporting on psychosocial care in brain cancer present a relatively narrow view of patient and support person experiences. The inclusion of both patient and support person perspectives and the assessment of multiple components of care are required in future research to optimize psychosocial outcomes in brain cancer.

Australian GPs' perceptions of barriers and enablers to best practice palliative care: a qualitative study.

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.