Cancer patients' concerns regarding access to cancer care: perceived impact of waiting times along the diagnosis and treatment journey.

Waiting times can raise significant concern for cancer patients. This study examined cancer patients' concern levels at each phase of waiting. Demographic, disease and psychosocial characteristics associated with concern at each phase were also assessed. 146 consenting outpatients (n= 146) were recruited from two hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Each completed a touch-screen computer survey, asking them to recall concern experienced regarding waiting times at each treatment phase. Approximately half (52%) reported experiencing concern during at least one treatment phase, while 8.9% reported experiencing concern at every phase. Higher proportions of patients reported concern about waiting times from: deciding to have radiotherapy to commencement of radiotherapy (31%); the first specialist appointment to receiving a cancer diagnosis (28%); and deciding to have chemotherapy to commencement of chemotherapy (28%). Patient groups more likely to report concern were those of lower socio-economic status, born outside Australia, or of younger age. Although a small proportion of patients reported very high levels of concern regarding waiting times, the experience of some concern was prevalent. Opportunities for reducing this concern are discussed. Vulnerable groups, such as younger and socio-economically disadvantaged patients, should be the focus of efforts to reduce waiting times and patient concern levels.

Cutting the research pie: a value-weighting approach to explore perceptions about psychosocial research priorities for adults with haematological cancers.

Despite the burden of illness associated with haematological cancers, little research is available about improving psychosocial outcomes for this group. Given scarce research funds, it is important to ensure that resources are used strategically for improving their psychosocial well-being. This study aimed to identify the perceptions of professionals, patients and carers regarding prioritising psychosocial research efforts. First, an expert panel's views on priorities for research were identified. This was followed by a web survey to obtain the perceptions of 117 health professionals, patients and carers. The value-weighting survey used points allocation, allowing respondents to indicate the relative priority of each option. A substantial proportion of resources were allocated to patients who were newly diagnosed or receiving treatment. Less priority was given to other stages of the cancer journey or non-patient populations. There was no indication that any type of psychosocial research was a priority; however, some differences were identified when comparing the priorities of the three respondent groups. To improve psychosocial outcomes for haematological cancer patients, resources should be directed towards patients in the early stages of the cancer journey. There may be a need for research investigating potential interventions to improve psychosocial outcomes for patients with haematological cancers.

Patient or treatment centre? Where are efforts invested to improve cancer patients' psychosocial outcomes?

The psychosocial outcomes of cancer patients may be influenced by individual-level, social and treatment centre predictors. This paper aimed to examine the extent to which individual, social and treatment centre variables have been examined as predictors or targets of intervention for psychosocial outcomes of cancer patients. Medline was searched to find studies in which the psychological outcomes of cancer patient were primary variables. Papers published in English between 1999 and 2009 that reported primary data relevant to psychosocial outcomes for cancer patients were included, with 20% randomly selected for further coding. Descriptive studies were coded for inclusion of individual, social or treatment centre variables. Intervention studies were coded to determine if the unit of intervention was the individual patient, social unit or treatment centre. After random sampling, 412 publications meeting the inclusion criteria were identified, 169 were descriptive and 243 interventions. Of the descriptive papers 95.0% included individual predictors, and 5.0% social predictors. None of the descriptive papers examined treatment centre variables as predictors of psychosocial outcomes. Similarly, none of the interventions evaluated the effectiveness of treatment centre interventions for improving psychosocial outcomes. Potential reasons for the overwhelming dominance of individual predictors and individual-focused interventions in psychosocial literature are discussed.

Are we there yet? The state of the evidence base for guidelines on breaking bad news to cancer patients.

The way clinicians break bad news to cancer patients has been retrospectively associated with poor psychosocial outcomes for patients. Education and practice in breaking bad news may be ineffective for improving patients' well-being unless it is informed by a sound evidence base. In the health field, research efforts are expected to advance evidence over time to inform evidence-based practice. Key characteristics of an advancing evidence base are a predominance of new data, and rigorous intervention studies which prospectively demonstrate improved outcomes. This review aimed to examine the progress of the evidence base in breaking bad news to cancer patients. Manual and computer-based searches (Medline and PsycINFO) were performed to identify publications on the topic of breaking bad news to cancer patients published between January 1995 and March 2009. Relevant publications were coded in terms of whether they provided new data, examined psychosocial outcomes for patients or tested intervention strategies and whether intervention studies met criteria for design rigour. Of the 245 relevant publications, 55.5% provided new data and 16.7% were intervention studies. Much of the intervention effort was directed towards improving provider skills rather than patient outcomes (9.8% of studies). Less than 2% of publications were rigorous intervention studies which addressed psychosocial outcomes for patients. Rigorous intervention studies which evaluate strategies for improving psychosocial outcomes in relation to breaking bad news to cancer patients are needed. Current practice and training regarding breaking bad news cannot be regarded as evidence-based until further research is completed.