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.

The development of a template for psychological assessment of women considering risk-reducing or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A national Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: Risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPM) are increasingly prevalent strategies to reduce breast cancer risk. Given the associated physical and emotional challenges, presurgical psychological assessment is frequently recommended for this population, yet limited research exists to guide this. This study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant content and format of a psychological consultation prior to RRM/CPM. METHODS: A modified two-round online Delphi study was conducted Australia-wide. Expert participants (n = 25), including psychologists, surgeons, nurses, oncologists, genetic specialists, and researchers completed a round-one survey, informed by a literature review, previous qualitative study and expert clinicians' input. This required participants to rate their agreement with 36 statements regarding potential content of a psychological consultation and provide feedback on format/structure. A round-two survey comprised items that had not reached consensus and six new items suggested by participants. Parameters for statement consensus were set a priori at >75% agreement. RESULTS: Expert participants indicated agreement with the majority of statements (39/42, 92.8%), endorsing that the assessment should include (1) patient understanding of the RRM/CPM procedure/cancer risk, (2) potential physical/emotional impact of surgery, (3) informed decision-making, and (4) past/current psychological issues (anxiety and body image). A provisional assessment template and user manual is provided. CONCLUSIONS: This research culminated in a consensus-based template to guide psychological assessment of women considering RRM/CPM. This enables health professionals to assess suitability for surgery and preempt challenges within a standardised framework. Future evaluation of the acceptability and effectiveness of the template in clinical settings is warranted.

Clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: Australian guidelines.

PURPOSE: A clinical pathway for anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients was developed to guide best practice in Australia. METHODS: The pathway was based on a rapid review of existing guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, stakeholder interviews, a Delphi process with 87 multidisciplinary stakeholders and input from a multidisciplinary advisory panel. RESULTS: The pathway recommends formalized routine screening for anxiety and depression in patients with cancer at key points in the patient's journey. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System or distress thermometer with problem checklist is recommended as brief screening tools, combined with a more detailed tool, such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, to identify possible cases. A structured clinical interview will be required to confirm diagnosis. When anxiety or depression is identified, it is recommended that one person in a treating team takes responsibility for coordinating appropriate assessment, referral and follow-up (not necessarily carrying these out themselves). A stepped care model of intervention is proposed, beginning with the least intensive available that is still likely to provide significant health gain. The exact intervention, treatment length and follow-up timelines, as well as professionals involved, are provided as a guide only. Each service should identify their own referral network based on local resources and current service structure, as well as patient preference. DISCUSSION: This clinical pathway will assist cancer services to design their own systems to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients, to improve the quality of care.

Talking about sex after cancer: a discourse analytic study of health care professional accounts of sexual communication with patients.

There is consistent evidence that health care professionals (hcps) are not addressing the sexual information and support needs of people with cancer. Thirty-eight Australian hcps across a range of professions working in cancer care were interviewed, to examine constructions of sexuality post-cancer, the subject positions adopted in relation to sexual communication, and the ways in which discourses and subject positions shape information provision and communication about sexuality. Participants constructed sexual changes post-cancer in physical, psychological and relational terms, and positioned such changes as having the potential to significantly impact on patient and partner well-being. This was associated with widespread adoption of a discourse of psychosocial support, which legitimated discussion of sexual changes within a clinical consultation, to alleviate distress, dispel myths and facilitate renegotiation of sexual practices. However, this did not necessarily translate into patient-centred practice outcomes, with the majority of participants positioning personal, patient-centred and situational factors as barriers to the discussion of sex within many clinical consultations. This included: absence of knowledge, confidence and comfort; positioning sex as irrelevant or inappropriate for some people; and limitations of the clinical context. In contrast, those who did routinely discuss sexuality adopted a subject position of agency, responsibility and confidence.

Who helps the leaders? Difficulties experienced by cancer support group leaders.

GOALS OF WORK: Cancer support groups are an important source of support for cancer patients, yet little is known about the challenges and training needs of both professionally trained and untrained leaders. The aim of this study was to discover the difficulties experienced and training desired by cancer support group leaders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven leaders of 34 cancer support groups participated in focus groups or individual interviews. Groups were purposively selected as representative of 173 support groups identified in New South Wales which were for adults with cancer and/or their adult carers and were not therapeutic or education-only groups. MAIN RESULTS: Difficulties identified included dealing with people's different communication styles and needs; dealing with recurrence, metastases and death; practical issues, including resources, setting the programme and funding security; maintaining personal balance and preventing burn out; establishing group credibility; dealing with group cycles; and leading groups in rural areas. Leaders also identified benefits and rewards from group leadership such as contributing to others' well-being, self-development and insight into others' lives. Non-professionally trained leaders experienced more difficulties, particularly in dealing with group process and practical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Difficulties identified were related both to working with a cancer population specifically and to working with groups in general. While some issues were common to both health professionals and non-health professionals, non-health professionals reported greater supportive needs. Clear guidelines, targeted training and development of better methods of support to reduce the stress and burn out experienced by group leaders are needed.

Sustaining leaders of cancer support groups: the role, needs, and difficulties of leaders.

Cancer support groups are an important source of support for cancer patients, yet little is known about the characteristics of, and barriers to, effective leadership, and the training needs of both professionally trained and untrained leaders. This study explored the views of 179 leaders of 184 cancer support groups in NSW, Australia, regarding these issues. Four hundred and sixteen members of 50 groups selected from the larger cohort completed questionnaires eliciting the importance of group processes, including leader qualities, and satisfaction with group leadership. Finally, members of nine groups participated in focus groups regarding effective group processes. The importance of the leader(s) was emphasized in all stages of the research. Fifty-nine percent of group leaders were currently experiencing a difficulty, primarily related to infrastructure or group process. Three characteristics of effective leaders were identified: educational qualities, facilitation skills, and personal qualities. There is clearly a need to develop and evaluate effective interventions to maintain leaders in these roles, if the proven benefits for cancer patients are to be protected.