Managing uncertainty and responding to difficult emotions: Cancer patients' perspectives on clinician response during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic have experienced stress and uncertainty with respect to disruptions in cancer care and COVID-19 related risks. We examined whether clinicians' responsiveness to patients' uncertainty and difficult emotions were associated with better health and well-being. METHODS: Patients were recruited from cancer support communities and a market research firm. Respondents assessed clinicians communication that addressed uncertainty and difficult emotions. Health status measures included mental and physical health, coping during the pandemic, and psychological distress. RESULTS: 317 respondents participated in the study. Patients' perceptions of their clinicians responsiveness to patient uncertainty and negative emotions were associated with better mental health, physical health, coping, and less psychological distress (all p-values <0.001). Respondents with greater self-efficacy and social support also reported better health. CONCLUSION: Even when controlling for patients' personal and health-related characteristics, clinicians' communication addressing patients' uncertainty and difficult emotions predicted better health, better coping, and less psychological distress. Access to social support and self-efficacy also were associated with better health status. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians' communication focused on helping with uncertainty and difficult emotions is important to cancer patients, especially during the pandemic. Clinicians should also direct patients to resources for social support and patient empowerment.

Navigating the uncertainty of health advocacy teaching and evaluation from the trainee's perspective.

BACKGROUND: There may be no competency more shrouded in uncertainty than health advocacy (HA), raising questions about the robustness of advocacy training in postgraduate medical education. By understanding how programs currently train HA, we can identify whether trainees' learning needs are being met. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, we reviewed curricular documents across nine direct-entry specialties at all Ontario medical schools, comparing content for the HA and communicator roles to delineate role-specific challenges. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with trainees (n = 9) and faculty (n = 6) to review findings and discuss their impact. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Curricular documents revealed vague objectives and ill-defined modes of assessment for both intrinsic roles. This uncertainty was perceived as more problematic for HA, in part because HA seemed both undervalued in, and disconnected from, clinical learning. Trainees felt that the onus was on them to figure out how to develop and demonstrate HA competence, causing many to turn their learning attention elsewhere. DISCUSSION: Lack of curricular focus seems to create the perception that advocacy isn't valuable, deterring trainees-even those keen to become competent advocates-from developing HA skills. Such ambivalence may have troubling downstream effects for both patient care and trainees' professional development.

Tools to manage medical uncertainty.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite an explosion of evidence-based guidelines, many decisions in clinical practice remain shrouded in uncertainty. Physicians could view ambiguous situations as a source of threat. Uncertainty results from personal lack of knowledge, limits of current medical knowledge and the inability to distinguish between the two. The purpose of this review is to study the prevalence, effects and management of medical uncertainty in clinical practice. METHODS: PubMed search for articles on prevalence and management of medical uncertainty. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Intolerance to uncertainty among physicians may result in increased test-ordering tendencies, failure to comply with evidence-based guidelines, guide career choices, and result in decreased comfort with geriatric, chronic illness and psychological problems. Factors causing variability of disease management includes: patient factors(inappropriate prioritization, risk aversion, expectations), physicians factors(lack of knowledge, intolerance to medical uncertainty, limited resources, time constraints), biological variability of patient, health system factors, patients comorbidities, technological and media influences contributing further to unrealistic expectations. Physicians' perceptions of uncertainty in their daily work vary considerably. Urologist and orthopedic surgeons reported less uncertainty in their daily routine compared to psychiatrists, family practitioners and general internists. Effective methods of managing uncertainty include, consensus building among physicians from 3 or more specialties regarding patients problem, building trust between patients, their physicians and health care systems, thoughtful evaluation with exclusion of worrisome diagnosis, apply evidence-based information with effective risk communication, negotiating management strategies with patient and establishing regular follow-up with personalized feedback. (- 245 words).

Rising Sea Levels: Helping Decision-Makers Confront the Inevitable.

Sea-level rise (SLR) is not just a future trend; it is occurring now in most coastal regions across the globe. It thus impacts not only long-range planning in coastal environments, but also emergency preparedness. Its inevitability and irreversibility on long time scales, in addition to its spatial non-uniformity, uncertain magnitude and timing, and capacity to drive non-stationarity in coastal flooding on planning and engineering timescales, create unique challenges for coastal risk-management decision processes. This review assesses past United States federal efforts to synthesize evolving SLR science in support of coastal risk management. In particular, it outlines the: (1) evolution in global SLR scenarios to those using a risk-based perspective that also considers low-probability but high-consequence outcomes, (2) regionalization of the global scenarios, and (3) use of probabilistic approaches. It also describes efforts to further contextualize regional scenarios by combining local mean sea-level changes with extreme water level projections. Finally, it offers perspectives on key issues relevant to the future uptake, interpretation, and application of sea-level change scenarios in decision-making. These perspectives have utility for efforts to craft standards and guidance for preparedness and resilience measures to reduce the risk of coastal flooding and other impacts related to SLR.