Is care really shared? A systematic review of collaborative care (shared care) interventions for adult cancer patients with depression.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care involves active engagement of primary care and hospital physicians in shared care of patients beyond usual discharge summaries. This enhances community-based care and reduces dependence on specialists and hospitals. The model, successfully implemented in chronic care management, may have utility for treatment of depression in cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to identify components, delivery and roles and responsibilities within collaborative interventions for depression in the context of cancer. METHODS: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library and Central Register for Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify studies of randomised controlled trials comparing a treatment intervention that met the definition of collaborative model of depression care with usual care or other control condition. Studies of adult cancer patients with major depression or a non-bipolar depressive disorder published in English between 2005 and January 2018 were included. Cochrane checklist for risk of bias was completed (Study Prospero registration: CRD42018086515). RESULTS: Of 8 studies identified, none adhered to the definition of 'collaborative care'. Interventions delivered were multi-disciplinary, with care co-ordinated by nurses (n = 5) or social workers (n = 2) under the direction of psychiatrists (n = 7). Care was primarily delivered in cancer centres (n = 5). Care co-ordinators advised primary care physicians (GPs) of medication changes (n = 3) but few studies (n = 2) actively involved GPs in medication prescribing and management. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted joint participation of GPs and specialist care physicians in collaborative care depression management is promoted but not achieved in cancer care. Current models reflect hospital-based multi-disciplinary models of care. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018086515.

Relationships between supportive care needs and perceived burden in breast cancer survivor-caregiver dyads.

While burden in cancer caregivers is high and associated with poor outcomes, little is known about significance of specific supportive care needs' domains in determining survivors' or caregivers' perceived caregiver burden. This cross-sectional study explored which domains of survivor- and caregiver-reported supportive care needs were most associated with survivor- and caregiver-reported caregiver burden, in breast cancer survivor-caregiver dyads. Cancer survivors (N = 55) and their caregivers (N = 44) completed measures of supportive care needs, anxiety, depression, functional well-being and perceived caregiver burden. Correlation and linear regression analyses were used to determine relative significance of survivor and caregiver supportive care needs in accounting for variance in survivor and caregiver perceptions of burden. Higher survivor-perceived caregiver burden and higher caregiver-perceived difficulty of caregiving were associated with higher levels of survivor and caregiver supportive care needs. Survivors' psychological needs uniquely contributed to survivors' self-perceived burden, and survivors' sexual needs and caregivers' work and social needs uniquely contributed to caregivers' perceived difficulty of caregiving. Caregiver's perceived time spent caregiving was associated with access to services needs but not other needs. Survivor and caregiver supportive care needs and burden appear interdependent. Longitudinal research with larger samples is warranted to examine these relationships.

Online information and support needs of women with advanced breast cancer: a qualitative analysis.

PURPOSE: Women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) face significant adjustment challenges, yet few resources provide them with information and support, and attendance barriers can preclude access to face-to-face psychosocial support. This paper reports on two qualitative studies examining (i) whether information and support-seeking preferences of women with ABC could be addressed in an online intervention, and (ii) how an existing intervention for patients with early stage cancer could be adapted for women with ABC. METHODS: Women with ABC participated in telephone interviews about their information and support-seeking preferences (N = 21) and evaluated an online intervention focused on early-stage cancer (N = 15). Interviews were transcribed and underwent thematic analysis using the framework method to identify salient themes. RESULTS: Participants most commonly sought medical, lifestyle-related, and practical information/support; however, when presented with an online intervention, participants most commonly gave positive feedback on content on coping with emotional distress. Difficulty finding information and barriers to using common sources of information/support including health professionals, family and friends, and peers were reported; however, some women also reported not wanting information or support. All participants evaluating the existing intervention gave positive feedback on various components, with results suggesting an online intervention could be an effective means of providing information/support to women with ABC, given improved specificity/relevance to ABC and increased tailoring to individual circumstances and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation of an existing online intervention for early stage cancer appears to be a promising avenue to address the information and support needs of women with ABC.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of written self-administered psychosocial interventions among adults with a physical illness.

OBJECTIVE: The cost of implementing professionally-led psychosocial interventions has limited their integration into routine care. To enhance the translation of effective psychosocial interventions in routine care, a self-administered format is sometimes used. The meta-analysis examined the efficacy of written self-administered, psychosocial interventions to improve outcomes among individuals with a physical illness. METHODS: Studies comparing a written self-administered intervention to a control group were identified through electronic databases searching. Pooled effect sizes were calculated across follow-up time points using random-effects models. Studies were also categorised according to three levels of guidance (self-administered, minimal contact, or guided) to examine the effect of this variable on outcomes. RESULTS: Forty manuscripts were retained for the descriptive review and 28 for the meta-analysis. Findings were significant for anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Results were not significant for quality of life and related domains as well as coping. Purely self-administered interventions were efficacious for depression, distress, and self-efficacy; only guided interventions had an impact on anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Findings showed that written self-administered interventions show promise across a number of outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Self-administered interventions are a potentially efficacious and cost-effective approach to address some of the most common needs of patients with a physical illness.