Qualitative evaluation of motives for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a French comprehensive cancer center: the PALPHA study.

PURPOSE: The integration of palliative care (PC) into oncological management is recommended well before the end of life. It improves quality of life and symptom control and reduces the aggressiveness of end-of-life care. However, its appropriate timing is still debated. Entry into an early-phase clinical trial (ECT) represents hopes for the patient when standard treatments have failed. It is an opportune moment to integrate PC to preserve the patient's general health status. The objective of this study was to evaluate the motives for acceptance or refusal of early PC management in patients included in an ECT. METHODS: Patients eligible to enter an ECT were identified and concomitant PC was proposed. All patients received exploratory interviews conducted by a researcher. Their contents were analyzed in a double-blind thematic analysis with a self-determination model. RESULTS: Motives for acceptance (PC acceptors: n = 27) were both intrinsic (e.g., pain relief, psychological support, anticipation of the future) and extrinsic (e.g., trust in the medical profession, for a relative, to support the advance of research). Motives for refusal (PC refusers: n = 3) were solely intrinsic (e.g., PC associated with death, negative representation of psychological support, no need for additional care, claim of independence). CONCLUSIONS: The motives of acceptors and refusers are not internalized in the same way and call for different autonomy needs. Acceptors and refusers are influenced by opposite representations of PC and a different perception of mixed management.

"There's not enough studies": Views of black breast and ovarian cancer patients on research participation.

BACKGROUND: Black breast and ovarian cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical cancer trials disproportionate to the prevalence of these cancers in Black females. Historically, lower enrollment has been attributed to individualized factors, including medical mistrust, but more recently structural factors, including systemic racism, have received additional scrutiny. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and ovarian cancer to understand their views and experiences related to research participation. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted via telephone or video conference and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes related to the offer and participation in cancer clinical trials and research studies, impact on cancer care, and recommendations to increase enrollment of Black patients. RESULTS: Sixty-one Black women completed an interview. Participants expressed that Black women are underrepresented in cancer research, and that this negatively impacted their own care. Many cited past historical abuses, including the Tuskegee syphilis trial, as a potential factor for lower enrollment but suggested that lower enrollment was better understood in the context of the entirety of their healthcare experiences, including present-day examples of patient mistreatment or dismissal. Participants suggested that proactive community engagement, transparency, and increased representation of Black research team members were strategies likely to foster trust and bolster research participation. CONCLUSION(S): Medical mistrust is only a partial factor in the lower participation of Black patients in cancer research. Researchers should implement the strategies identified by our participants to promote diverse enrollment and ensure that Black patients are included in future therapeutic advances.

Young at risk-people in Maputo City, Mozambique, present a high willingness to participate in HIV trials: Results from an HIV vaccine preparedness cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine efficacy testing requires engagement of willing volunteers with high disease incidence. We evaluated factors associated with willingness to participate in potential future HIV vaccine trials in Maputo, Mozambique. METHODS: Adults aged 18-35 years without HIV and who reported at least two sexual partners in the 3 months prior to screening were enrolled into a 24-month observational study. They were asked at screening and exit if they would be willing to participate in a theoretical HIV vaccine study. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were done between willingness to participate, demographic, sexual behavior, and motivational factors for screening visit data. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for factors potentially associated with willingness to participate for data from both visits. RESULTS: A total of 577 participants without HIV were eligible, including 275 (48%) women. The mean age was 22.2 (SD ± 3.9) years. At screening 529 (92%) expressed willingness to participate and the proportion remained stable at 378 (88%) of the 430 participants retained through the exit visit (p = 0.209). Helping the country (n = 556) and fear of needles (n = 26) were the top motive and barrier for willingness to participate, respectively. Results from the GEE binary logistic regression (screening visit and exit visit) showed that wanting to learn how to avoid risk behaviors (aOR 3.33, 95% CI: 1.61-6.86) and feeling protected against HIV infection (aOR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.07-4.7) were associated with willingness to participate in HIV vaccine studies. CONCLUSION: The majority of our study population in Mozambique expressed willingness to participate in a theoretical HIV vaccine trial. Participation in a HIV vaccine trial was seen as a way to contribute to the fight against HIV but was associated with some unrealistic expectations such as protection against HIV. This reinforces the need for continuous mobilization and awareness of potential participants to HIV vaccine trial.

Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Clinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain. Objective: To assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations. Evidence Review: For this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021. Findings: The analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, 62%-86%) for the date of first patient enrollment when the comparison time was increased to 30 days (date of first patient enrollment was not reported on EudraCT). For results availability in trial registries, agreement was 122 of 197 RCTs (62%; 95% CI, 55%-69%) for summary data reported in the registry and 91 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for whether a published article with the main results was indexed. Different legal requirements were stated as the main reason for inconsistencies by representatives of clinical trial registries. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, for a substantial proportion of registered RCTs, information about key trial characteristics was inconsistent across trial registries, raising concerns about the reliability of the information provided in these registries. Further harmonization across clinical trial registries may be necessary to increase their usefulness.

Experiences of Patients After Withdrawal From Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide patients an opportunity to receive experimental drugs, tests, and/or procedures that can lead to remission. For some, a CCT may seem like their only option. Little is known about experiences of patient-participants who withdraw or are withdrawn from CCTs. Objective: To examine patient-participants' experiences during withdrawal from CCTs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative, descriptive study used a semistructured interview designed specifically for it, with open-ended and probing questions. The study took place at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. The need for a sample of 20 interviewees was determined by code and meaning saturation (ie, no new themes revealed and identified themes fully elaborated). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with a qualitative software program. Data coded with the software were refined into categories reflecting broad themes. A criterion-based sampling approach was used to select a subset of adult patients with cancer who were former CCT participants and who agreed on exit from those CCTs to a later interview about withdrawal experiences. They were contacted one by one by telephone from September 2015 through June 2019 until 20 agreed. Data analysis was completed in October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes characterizing patient-participants' perceptions of their withdrawal experiences. Results: Respondents' mean (SD) age was 64.42 (8.49) years; 12 (63.2%) were men. Most respondents were White (18 respondents [94.7%]) and college educated (11 respondents [55.0%]). Cancer stage data were available for 17 participants, 11 of whom (64.7%) had stage IV cancer at CCT enrollment. Thirteen respondents reported withdrawal as a result of disease progression, and 5 withdrew because of adverse effects. Other reasons for withdrawal included acute illness and participant uncertainty about the reason. Analysis of interview data yielded 5 themes: posttrial prognostic awareness, goals of care discussions, emotional coping, burden of adverse effects, and professional trust and support. Subthemes included regrets or hindsight, urgency to start next treatment, and weighing benefits and burdens of treatment. Limited discussions about patient-participants' immediate posttrial care needs left many feeling that there was no clear path forward. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient-participants transitioning from a CCT described feeling intense symptoms and emotions and awareness that their life span was short and options seemed to be limited. Communication that includes attention to posttrial needs is needed throughout the CCT to help patient-participants navigate posttrial steps. Research should focus on components of responsible and ethical CCT transitions, including types and timing of discussions and who should begin these discussions with patient-participants and their families.

Parent clinical trial priorities for fragile X syndrome: a best-worst scaling.

An expansion in the availability of clinical drug trials for genetic neurodevelopmental conditions is underway. Delineating patient priorities is key to the success of drug development and clinical trial design. There is a lack of evidence about parent decision-making in the context of clinical drug trials for genetic neurodevelopmental conditions. We assessed parents' priorities when making a decision whether to enroll their child with fragile X syndrome (FXS) in a clinical drug trial. An online survey included a best-worst scaling method for parents to prioritize motivating and discouraging factors for child enrollment. Parents were recruited through the National Fragile X Foundation and FRAXA. Sequential best-worst with conditional logit analysis was used to determine how parents prioritize motivating and discouraging factors about trial enrollment decisions. Respondents (N = 354) were largely biological mothers (83%) of an individual with FXS who ranged in age from under 5 to over 21 years. The highest motivating factor was a trial to test a drug targeting the underlying FXS mechanism (coeff = 3.28, p < 0.001), followed by the potential of the drug to help many people (coeff = 3.03, p < 0.001). Respondents rated requirement of blood draws (coeff = -3.09, p < 0.001), loss of access to the drug post trial (coeff = -3.01, p < 0.001), and drug side effects (coeff = -2.96, p < 0.001) as most discouraging. The priorities defined by parents can be incorporated into evidence-based trial design and execution to enhance the enrollment process.

Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. METHODS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. RESULTS: Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

Factors Associated With Racial/Ethnic Group-Based Medical Mistrust and Perspectives on COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participation and Vaccine Uptake in the US.

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 in the US has been far-reaching and devastating, especially in Black populations. Vaccination is a critical part of controlling community spread, but vaccine acceptance has varied, with some research reporting that Black individuals in the US are less willing to be vaccinated than other racial/ethnic groups. Medical mistrust informed by experiences of racism may be associated with this lower willingness. Objective: To examine the association between race/ethnicity and rejection of COVID-19 vaccine trial participation and vaccine uptake and to investigate whether racial/ethnic group-based medical mistrust is a potential mediator of this association. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June to December 2020 using a convenience sample of 1835 adults aged 18 years or older residing in Michigan. Participants were recruited through community-based organizations and hospital-academic networks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Separate items assessed whether respondents, if asked, would agree to participate in a research study to test a COVID-19 vaccine or to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants also completed the suspicion subscale of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale. Results: Of the 1835 participants, 1455 (79%) were women, 361 (20%) men, and 19 (1%) other gender. The mean (SD) age was 49.4 (17.9) years, and 394 participants (21%) identified as Black individuals. Overall, 1376 participants (75%) reported low willingness to participate in vaccine trials, and 945 (52%) reported low willingness to be vaccinated. Black participants reported the highest medical mistrust scores (mean [SD], 2.35 [0.96]) compared with other racial/ethnic groups (mean [SD] for the total sample, 1.83 [0.91]). Analysis of path models revealed significantly greater vaccine trial and vaccine uptake rejection among Black participants (vaccine trial: B [SE], 0.51 [0.08]; vaccine uptake: B [SE], 0.51 [0.08]; both P < .001) compared with the overall mean rejection. The association was partially mediated by medical mistrust among Black participants (vaccine trial: B [SE], 0.04 [0.01]; P = .003; vaccine uptake: B [SE], 0.07 [0.02]; P < .001) and White participants (vaccine trial: B [SE], -0.06 [0.02]; P = .001; vaccine uptake: B [SE], -0.10 [0.02]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, racial/ethnic group-based medical mistrust partially mediated the association between individuals identifying as Black and low rates of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine trial participation and actual vaccination. The findings suggest that partnerships between health care and other sectors to build trust and promote vaccination may benefit from socially and culturally responsive strategies that acknowledge and address racial/ethnic health care disparities and historical and contemporary experiences of racism.

Evaluating patient perspectives on participating in scientific research and clinical trials for the treatment of spinal cord injury.

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate patients' perspective on research aimed at improving functions and overcoming complications associated with spinal cord injury (SCI). The first three sections were based on published and validated assessment tools. The final section was developed to assess participant perspectives on research for SCI. One thousand patients were approached, of which 159 participated. Fifty-eight percent of participants were satisfied with their 'life as a whole'. Two factors could be generated that reflected the variance in the data regarding participants' life with a SCI: "Psychosocial and physical wellbeing" and "Independent living". The majority of participants stated they would be involved in research (86%) or clinical trials (77%). However, the likelihood of participation dropped when potential risks of the research/trials were explained. Which participants would be willing to participate in research could not be predicted based on the severity of their injury, their psychosocial and physical wellbeing or their independent living. Despite participant establishment of a life with SCI, our data indicates that individuals strive for improvements in function. Participant willingness to be included in research studies is noteworthy and scientists and clinicians are encouraged to involve more patients in all aspects of their research.

Awareness of breast cancer patients in Poland about clinical trials as available treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in Poland and worldwide. Due to growing morbidity and mortality, patients are looking for new therapeutic options. Clinical trials give cancer patients a chance to access innovative treatment often not available in the national healthcare system. Patient awareness of clinical trials is an essential element for the development of the clinical trials market. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this survey was to obtain information from breast cancer patients about their knowledge of clinical trials. METHODS: One hundred people were invited to take part in the study, and were recruited into two groups: 50 patients diagnosed with breast cancer less than 40 years of age, and 50 patients with the same disease over 40 years of age. The survey was completed by female patients online. RESULTS: Most of the subjects correctly understood the assumptions of the clinical trial; most often, both groups of subjects obtained information about medical experiments from the Internet. According to the respondents, the most important motivating factor to participate in the clinical trial was the proposed study drug and their current state of health. Patients would more frequently decide to participate in a clinical trial at the time of cancer progression compared to immediately after diagnosis. Commuting to the research center made recruitment of older patients more difficult (40% of older patients versus 16% of younger patients, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Patients with breast cancer are aware of clinical trials and decide to participate in them based on the proposed study drug and their current state of health. Progression of the disease is a factor that increases the willingness to participate in clinical trials.

Towards consensus in defining and handling contextual factors within rheumatology trials: an initial qualitative study from an OMERACT working group.

OBJECTIVES: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative established the Contextual Factors Working Group to guide the understanding, identification and handling of contextual factors for clinical trials. In clinical research, different uses of the term 'contextual factors' exist. This study explores the perspectives of researchers (including clinicians) and patients in defining 'contextual factor' and its related terminology, identifying such factors and accounting for them in trials across rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted individual semistructured interviews with researchers (including clinicians) who have experience within the field of contextual factors in clinical trials or other potentially relevant areas, and small focus group interviews with patients with rheumatic conditions. We transcribed the interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 researchers and 7 patients. Researcher's and patient's descriptions of contextual factors were categorised into two broad themes, each comprising two contextual factors types. The 'treatment effect' theme focused on factors explaining variations in treatment effects (A) among patients and (B) among studies. The 'outcome measurement' theme focused on factors that explain (C) variations in the measurement result itself (apart from actual changes/differences in the outcome) and (D) variations in the outcome itself (beside treatment of interest). Methods for identifying and handling contextual factors differed among these themes and types. CONCLUSIONS: Two main themes for contextual factors with four types of contextual factors were identified based on input from researchers and patients. This will guide operationalisation of contextual factors. Further research should refine our findings and establish consensus among relevant stakeholders.

Parental experiences of being approached to join multiple neonatal clinical trials: qualitative study (PARENT).

OBJECTIVE: To explore parents' perceptions and experience of being approached for enrolment of their preterm infant in more than one trial or study. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving 17 in-depth semistructured interviews, with parents who had been approached for multiple studies and who subsequently consented for their infant(s) to join at least one. Parents who declined all studies were not approached. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Parents of preterm infants receiving care at one of three neonatal intensive care units in the north of England. FINDINGS: Most parents did not view concurrent participation in multiple trials or studies as a significant issue within the wider context of their infant's care. Most parents did not feel pressured into enrolling their infant into more than one study, but some suggested that participation in several provided justification for the subsequent refusal to join others, articulating feeling of guilt at saying 'no', and others appeared fatigued by multiple approaches. Parents focused on the perceived risks and benefits of each individual study and, while acknowledging that making a fully informed decision was not possible, largely agreed due to their belief in the benefits of research, trust in the health professionals caring for their baby and a range of complex personal motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Parents valued the autonomy to make decisions about participation and felt, with hindsight, that their decisions were right. Research teams could be more aware of parental feelings of guilt or gratitude that may motivate them to give consent. Similarly, the capacity of parents to fully remember details of multiple studies when they are stressed, and their infant is sick, should be taken into consideration, and continued efforts should be made to ensure ongoing consent to participation.

Role of implicit bias in pediatric cancer clinical trials and enrollment recommendations among pediatric oncology providers.

BACKGROUND: Provider implicit bias can negatively affect clinician-patient communication. In the current study, the authors measured implicit bias training among pediatric oncology providers and exposure to implicit association tests (IATs). They then assessed associations between IATs for race and socioeconomic status (SES) and recommendations for clinical trial enrollment. METHODS: A prospective multisite study was performed to measure implicit bias among oncology providers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and affiliate clinics. An IAT was used to assess bias in the domains of race and SES. Case vignettes were used to determine an association between bias and provider recommendation for trial enrollment. Data were analyzed using Student t tests or Wilcoxon tests for comparisons and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests were used for association. RESULTS: Of the 105 total participants, 95 (90%) had not taken an IAT and 97 (92%) had no prior implicit bias training. A large effect was found for (bias toward) high SES (Cohen d, 1.93) and European American race (Cohen d, 0.96). The majority of participants (90%) had a vignette score of 3 or 4, indicating recommendation for trial enrollment for most or all vignettes. IAT and vignette scores did not significantly differ between providers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or affiliate clinics. No association was found between IAT and vignette scores for race (P = .58) or SES (P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: The authors noted a paucity of prior exposure to implicit bias self-assessments and training. Although these providers demonstrated preferences for high SES and European American race, this did not appear to affect recommendations for clinical trial enrollment as assessed by vignettes.

"I would really want to know that they had my back": Transgender women's perceptions of HIV cure-related research in the United States.

Forty-four percent of Black transgender women are living with HIV, and many face challenges with HIV care engagement. An HIV cure has much to offer this population, however little HIV cure-related research has included them. We conducted 19 face-to-face in-depth interviews with 10 Black transgender women living with HIV. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using content analysis. Our interview guide contained three categories: 1) perceptions of HIV cure-related research and participation, 2) perceptions of HIV treatment and treatment interruptions, and 3) considerations for transgender women and HIV cure-related research. Salient themes included skepticism about HIV cure strategies and limited benefits compared with an undetectable viral load. Willingness to interrupt HIV treatment for research was low and linked to being able to go back on the same HIV treatment without consequence when the study ended. Concerns about being a test subject and perceptions of risks versus benefits of various strategies also affected willingness to take part in HIV cure-related research. Centering the dignity and autonomy of research participants as well as building upon and supporting existing social networks were identified as important facilitators for engaging Black transgender women in HIV cure-related research. Specific to Black transgender women, other concerns included the desire for gender-affirming research staff, community-building among transgender women, and safety issues associated with risk of transphobic violence when traveling to study visits. Participants stressed the importance of HIV cure-related researchers providing accessible and complete information and expressing genuine care and concern for transgender communities.

Earning the Trust of African American Communities to Increase Representation in Dementia Research.

Black/African American populations are underrepresented as participants in dementia research. A major barrier to participation of African American older adults in dementia research is a tendency to distrust research institutions owing to both historical and contemporary racism. Building on the Ford framework, the objective of our study was to examine factors that influence participation in dementia research among African American older adults and caregivers, with an emphasis on understanding factors related to trust. Data were collected during January 2019 and March 2020 from 10 focus groups with African American older adults (n=91), 5 focus groups with caregivers (n=44), and interviews with administrators of community-based organizations (n=11), and meetings with our Community Advisory Board. Inductive/deductive content analysis was used to identify themes. The results identified an overall tension between distrust of researchers and a compelling desire to engage in dementia research. This overarching theme was supported by six themes that provided insights about the multiple layers of distrust, as well as expectations about the appropriate conduct of researchers and academic institutions. Strong commitment to the community was identified as a priority. The findings suggest that a paradigm shift is needed to increase the representation of African Americans in dementia research. In this new paradigm, earning the trust of African American communities becomes a systemic endeavor, with academic, state, and national institutions deeply committed to earning the trust of African American communities and guiding researchers in this endeavor. The findings also generated actionable recommendations to help improve representation of African American older adults in dementia research.

Paralización de ensayos clínicos de intervenciones psicológicas a causa del brote de COVID-19: ¿cómo actuar? / Clinical trials of psychological interventions cancelled due to the COVID-19 outbreak: how should we respond?

No disponible

Changing landscape: psychological care in the era of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulators.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review provides an overview of key psychological issues and challenges for the cystic fibrosis (CF) transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator era of care. It discusses research from diagnosis and beyond, to patient-team communication with a particular focus on medical trials, adherence and living with CFTR modulators. RECENT FINDINGS: The impact of the diagnosis on parents is immense and the complexity of treatment now and in the future, are a challenge for both parents and teams. Communicating digitally is starting to become daily practice for many in CF care, with coronavirus disease 2019 accelerating this process. Participating in trials has a psychological impact, but most of all the (delayed) access and timing of accessing CFTR modulators is an important theme. Adherence remains of significance, both to 'old' and 'new' treatments. Living with CF in the era of CFTR modulators is beginning to impact on patients' quality of life, including new possibilities, opportunities and challenges. SUMMARY: Psychological care needs to engage and keep pace with the rapid medical changes. Some care priorities remain the same, including psychological screening and assessment, as well as psychoeducation, communication training and psychotherapy. The presence of CF psychologist in the CF clinic remains as important as ever.