Association between oncologists' death anxiety and their end-of-life communication with advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Early and open communication of palliative care (PC) and end-of-life (EoL)-related issues in advanced cancer care is not only recommended by guidelines, but also preferred by the majority of patients. However, oncologists tend to avoid timely addressing these issues. We investigated the role of oncologists' personal death anxiety in the rare occurrence of PC/EoL conversations. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study assessing oncologists' strengths and difficulties in self-reported and externally rated PC/EoL communication skills as well as their association with death anxiety. Death anxiety was assessed via the Thanatophobia-Scale. PC/EoL communication skills were assessed via validated questionnaires and study-specific items plus an external rating of videotaped medical consultation with simulated patients. A general linear model was conducted to analyze associations. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three oncologists participated (age: M(SD) = 32.9 years (6.9), 59.5% female). Both from the external and from their own perspective, oncologists had difficulties in addressing PC and the EoL. They avoided those aspects more than other topics in consultations with advanced cancer patients. Death anxiety was associated with more avoidant self-reported communication strategies, lower self-efficacy, less confidence in discussing the EoL and less confidence in discussing patients' goals and wishes, but was not associated with externally rated PC/EoL communication. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists have experienced and externally observable difficulties in addressing PC and the EoL. Oncologists with higher death anxiety subjectively experience more difficulties. Group supervision and consultation offers might be means to empower oncologists, increase awareness of personal fears and enhance confidence and self-efficacy. This might facilitate earlier PC/EoL communication.

Evaluation of a communication skills training to facilitate addressing palliative care related topics in advanced cancer patients: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PALLI-KOM).

BACKGROUND: Early integration of palliative care concurrently to standard cancer care is associated with several benefits for patients and their caregivers. However, communication barriers on part of the caring physicians often impede a timely referral to palliative care. This study describes the protocol of the evaluation of a communication skills training aiming to strengthen the ability of physicians to address palliative care related topics adequately and early during disease trajectory. METHODS: We will implement a communication skills training and evaluate it within a prospective, multi-centered, two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT), which will be conducted at four sites in Germany. Eligible subjects are all physicians treating patients with advanced cancer in their daily routine. An intervention group (IG) receiving a group training will be compared to a wait-list control group (CG) receiving the training after completion of data collection. At pre- and post-measurement points, participants will conduct videotaped conversations with standardized simulated patients (SP). Primary outcome will be the external rating of communication skills and consulting competencies addressing palliative care related topics. Secondary outcomes on core concepts of palliative care, basic knowledge, attitudes, confidence and self-efficacy will be assessed by standardized questionnaires and self-developed items. A further external assessment of the quality of physician-patient-interaction will be conducted by the SP. Longitudinal quantitative data will be analyzed using covariate-adjusted linear mixed-models. DISCUSSION: If the communication skills training proves to be effective, it will provide a feasible intervention to promote an earlier communication of palliative care related topics in the care of advanced cancer patients. This would help to further establish early integration of palliative care as it is recommended by national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017025 (date of registration: 4 June 2019).

Outcomes across the return-to-work process in PC survivors attending a rehabilitation measure-results from a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Approximately 60% of patients are able to work following a cancer diagnosis. The return-to-work (RTW) process after disability can be conceptualized as a multi-phase construct. This study investigated RTW outcomes throughout the RTW process among survivors of prostate cancer (PC) attending a cancer rehabilitation measure. METHODS: The study was based on a sample of 837 employed PC survivors enrolled in a longitudinal multicenter study. Data was collected at the beginning of the rehabilitation measure, at the end and at 12-month follow-up by means of self-report questionnaires. We compared outcomes with regard to age (<60 and ≥60 years) and socio-economic status (SES; lower, middle, higher) using t tests or univariate ANOVA for metrical and chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: In the off-work phase, most survivors reported positive expectations regarding future work, including responsiveness of their work environment. Nevertheless, one fourth intended to apply for a disability pension. At 12-month follow-up, the RTW rate was 87% and 62% when applying more conservative criteria of RTW. Among survivors who had returned to work, most reported stability of the work situation. Survivors with lower SES showed least favorable outcomes throughout the RTW process, while older age was less consistently of negative impact. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors reported many favorable RTW outcomes, but low SES might be a barrier at various stages of the RTW process. Thus, special attention must be paid to the role of social inequalities during rehabilitation and work reintegration to help survivors managing the RTW process.

Psychosocial and physical outcomes of in- and outpatient rehabilitation in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: A radical prostatectomy might lead to an impaired quality of life. Aim of the study was to analyse the impact of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation on psychosocial and physical outcomes in patients after surgery. METHODS: Six hundred nineteen inpatients and 95 outpatients, treated for localized prostate cancer by prostatectomy, completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and two quality-of-life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25) at the beginning and end of rehabilitation as well as 12 months after rehabilitation. Data were analysed by using t-tests, chi(2) - tests and analyses of variance with repeated measures. RESULTS: Compared to a population sample, patients reported a significantly worse quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and more anxiety (HADS) at the beginning of rehabilitation. Physical, role and social functioning increased significantly over time for in- and outpatients. Patients still reported lower emotional functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30), anxiety (HADS) and prostate cancer-specific physical symptoms (EORTC QLQ-PR25) 1 year after rehabilitation, although symptom levels decreased significantly over time. The setting did not have an independent significant effect in the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: In- and outpatients reported an increased quality of life 1 year after rehabilitation with respect to their physical constitution and their reintegration into social life. Nonetheless, both groups still struggled with problems due to surgery. The results indicated that both settings seem to be supportive in the recovery process but that patients seem to require additional support with aftercare for treating surgery-related problems as well as emotional discomfort.

Psychometric properties of the Occupational Stress and Coping Inventory (AVEM) in a cancer population.

BACKGROUND: Although the Occupational Stress and Coping Inventory (AVEM) questionnaire is used to assess work behaviour during occupation-related oncological rehabilitation, little is known about its psychometric characteristics in cancer patients. Therefore, we analysed the psychometric properties of the AVEM in this group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The AVEM was administered to 477 cancer patients at the beginning of rehabilitation. The AVEM consists of 11 subscales that categorise patients into one of four types of work behaviour. We obtained data from several subgroups and analysed reliability using Cronbach's α. We performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the dimensional structure proposed by the authors of the AVEM. In addition, we analysed the AVEM's predictive validity by examining work-related outcomes one year after the end of rehabilitation (N = 336). RESULTS: Similar to a population-based reference sample, half of the patients exhibited work behaviours that might be problematic in stressful working situations. The AVEM proved to be a reliable instrument, and the CFA supported the factor structure of the AVEM. The analyses of predictive validity suggest that work behaviour and mental health characteristics, that involve the tendency to feel overwhelmed and less motivated at work, might lead to an increased level of occupational stress one year post-rehabilitation. DISCUSSION: The AVEM can be used during rehabilitation to assess the extent to which patients report work behaviours associated with occupational stress and dissatisfaction. Patients who exhibit the tendency to feel overwhelmed and helpless in stressful work situations should be identified early so they can be offered support.

Addressing palliative care and end-of-life issues in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of communication interventions for physicians not specialised in palliative care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarise evaluated interventions aiming to improve the communication of palliative care (PC) and end-of-life (EoL) issues in physicians caring for cancer patients. Such interventions are needed with regard to the aim of an earlier communication of those issues in oncology daily practice, which is associated with a range of benefits for patients and caregivers but is often impeded by physicians' communication insecurities. DESIGN: Systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Relevant publications were systematically searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science databases in September 2020 with an update in July 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included publications reporting a quantitative evaluation of a communication intervention on one or more PC/EoL issues with a communication-related main outcome. Target group had to be physicians caring for cancer patients non-specialist in PC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent raters extracted intervention characteristics, publication characteristics and publication quality. Results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 24 publications reporting 22 interventions were included. 13 publications reported randomised controlled trials. A majority of the interventions addressed one specific PC/EoL issue, most often breaking bad news. Teaching strategies mostly involved role-plays. Target group were mainly oncologists. In addition to self-reported outcome measurements for evaluation, most publications also reported the use of external rating data. All but one publication reported significant intervention effects on at least one outcome parameter. Publication quality was overall moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The empirically tested communication interventions on PC/EoL issues seem to effectively improve physicians' communication. Future interventions should focus on other issues than breaking bad news, such as preparing for the future. Target group should also be organ-specific oncologists, as all primary caring physicians are responsible for timely communication. Our risk-of-bias assessment revealed some weaknesses, indicating that more high-quality studies for evaluation are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191054.