"Cured" but not "healed": The application of principles of palliative care to cancer survivorship.

Application of principles of palliative care to the concept of survivorship may serve to establish an interdisciplinary approach to guide those treated for cancer through the experience of being "cured" but not "healed". Valuable lessons may be garnered from palliative care if its principles are considered within the context of survivorship. This work aims to define key terms including cured, healed, survivorship, and quality of life (QoL) and delineate the central tenets of palliative care and disease-modifying care. Since pursuit of a cure tends to dominate provision of oncological care, Western society's prevailing death denying attitudes often equate to the prioritization of advanced medial treatment to postpone death. Accordingly, the "modern paradox" of medicine (Cassell, 2004) is examined in consideration of the suffering that often results from advanced medical treatment that is intended to alleviate the cause of suffering and ultimately, "deny" death. However, owing to the profound consequences of advanced medical treatment and the associated losses of function concomitant with cancer, there is an apparent need for a framework of care that attends to these survivorship issues. When the experience of being cured but not healed is articulated through a theoretical discussion of liminality and the "remission society" (Frank, 1995), the applicability of palliative care to survivorship care becomes apparent. By embracing principles of palliative care, survivorship care may be guided by a theoretical foundation that provides cancer survivors with care that supports increased QoL, biopsychosocial symptom management, and a holistic perspective of the illness experience. Accordingly, application of palliative care to survivorship may establish congruence between notions of cured and healed.

A critical exploration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework from the perspective of oncology: recommendations for revision.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the World Health Organization developed the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework in an effort to attend to the multidimensional health-related concerns of individuals. Historically, although the ICF has frequently been used in a rehabilitation-based context, the World Health Organization has positioned it as a universal framework of health and its related states. Consequently, the ICF has been utilized for a diverse array of purposes in the field of oncology, including: evaluating functioning in individuals with cancer, guiding assessment in oncology rehabilitation, assessing the comprehensiveness of outcome measures utilized in oncology research, assisting in health-related quality of life instrument selection, and comparing the primary concerns of health professionals with those of their patients. DISCUSSION: Examination of the ICF through the lens of cancer care highlights the fact that this framework can be a valuable tool to facilitate comprehensive care in oncology, but it currently possesses some areas of limitation that require conceptual revision; to this end, several recommendations have been proposed. Specifically, these proposed recommendations center on the following three areas of the ICF framework: (1) the replacement of the term "health condition" with the more inclusive and dynamic term "health state;" (2) the continuing development and refinement of the personal factors component to ensure issues such as comorbidities can be accounted for appropriately; and (3) the inclusion of a mechanism to account for the subjective dimension of health and functioning (eg, quality of life). SUMMARY: It is through the expansion of these conceptual parameters that the ICF may become more relevant and applicable to the field of oncology. With these important revisions, the ICF has the potential to provide a broader biopsychosocial perspective of care that captures the diverse range of concerns that arise throughout the continuum of care in oncology.

Nature and the natural environment as health facilitators: the need to reconceptualize the ICF environmental factors.

PURPOSE: This work examines the environmental factors component of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) relative to current health-facilitating evidence about natural environmental factors. We argue that the environmental factors component warrants reconceptualization in order to offer an extended and more systematic framework for identifying and measuring health-facilitating natural environmental factors. METHOD: Current evidence highlighting the potential health-facilitating benefits of natural environmental factors is synthesized and considered in the context of the ICF framework and its coding system. RESULTS: In its current form, the ICF's conceptual framework and coding system are inadequate for identifying and measuring natural environmental factors in individuals and groups with and/or without health conditions. CONCLUSION: The ICF provides an advanced framework for health and disability that reflects contemporary conceptualizations about health. However, given the scope of emerging evidence highlighting positive health and well-being outcomes associated with natural environmental factors, we believe the environmental factors component requires further advancement to reflect this current knowledge. Reconceptualizing the environmental factors component supports a more holistic interpretation of the continuum of environmental factors as both facilitators and barriers. In doing so, it strengthens the ICF's utility in identifying and measuring health-facilitating natural environmental factors.