"Maybe they have found something new" participants' views on returning cohort psychosocial survey results.

BACKGROUND: Although greater attention is currently being paid to participants in research, no studies have dealt so far with the issue of returning aggregate psychosocial results to cohort participants. OBJECTIVE: (i) To explore participants' views about disclosure of the aggregate results of a French national psychosocial cohort survey on the epidemiology of preventive behaviour in women from families with a hereditary breast cancer risk. (ii) To assess whether it is worth consulting participants before designing the disclosure process. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured face-to-face interviews and a thematic analysis based on Grounded Theory methods. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen interviews were conducted with cancer-free female BRCA mutation carriers/non-carriers aged 31-79 who had participated in a cohort survey by answering self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: Participants showed considerable interest in the issue of result disclosure. The preferences expressed about disclosure were rarely relevant to the topic investigated, however, as they often focused on medical knowledge about BRCA and not on the psychosocial findings obtained. This confusion may have been due to the participants' experience of the survey procedures, including its longitudinal nature, the occurrence of very few interactions with the investigators and the wide range of topics addressed in the questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Investigators should ascertain participants' expectations and preferences by consulting them before disclosing the results obtained. Although the disclosure process may not meet participants' expectations completely, consultation is the key to preventing them from having irrealistic expectations about the information they are going to receive.

[The surrogate: Partner in the shared decision-making]. / Personne de confiance : un partenaire dans la décision partagée.

UNLABELLED: The legislative process of the surrogate appears to be unclear to health professionals and to patients and next of kin. To better adapt this process to the clinical practice our objective was here to document how the persons designated as surrogate perceived their role and how they described the difficulties encountered in oncology. METHODS: Qualitative survey with an ethnographic approach carried out in 2014-2015, fieldwork, face-to-face interviews (n=26 including 20 surrogates and 6 patients) in a mobile palliative care unit located at a Regional Comprehensive Cancer Centre. RESULTS: Close relationship, psychological and cognitive competences were the main attribute to designate a surrogate. Perceived roles included the fact to be involved in decisions, to protect the patient, to be present, and to be a messenger. This process gives the next of kin the feeling to be part of the patient management. In the context of divorced families, it sometimes allows to rehabilitate and to reinforce the affective links. Our data highlight the confusion between the designation of the 'person to call' and 'the surrogate'. DISCUSSION: Our results highlight the 'surrogate' protective role of the patient, and the positive sides of the process, in particular in the context of divorced/rebuilt families. We recommend splitting the process to designate the 'person to call' and the 'surrogate', as administrative and medical duties, respectively.