Cancer during a pandemic: A psychosocial telehealth intervention for young adults.

The SARS-II COVID-19 pandemic has posed pronounced global health threats and prompted assorted transformations in societal engagement and clinical service delivery. For cancer survivors, many of whom are immune-compromised, these pandemic-related health threats pose greater challenges, warranting extra precautions within everyday living. Young adult (YA) cancer survivors already confront many unique physical and emotional challenges specific to their demographic. Already comfortable with assorted technologies, the pandemic presented an opportunity to provide telehealth intervention that targeted social isolation and distress in an effort to facilitate healthy coping. Within this context, we created an 8-week telehealth intervention for YAs (age 18-39) comprised of 60-minute sessions with interventions derived from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy. Participants reported a reduction in anxious preoccupation, helplessness/hopelessness, and psychological inflexibility and provided rich qualitative feedback on their experiences. Findings contribute new insight for an underinvestigated population navigating the dual health threats of cancer and COVID-19, provide practice recommendations with attention to the value of qualitative data capturing in group settings, and underscore participants' preference for flexible group structure and age-related connections.

Goals and Adverse Effects: Rate of Concordance Between Patients and Providers.

PURPOSE: Adequate understanding of the goals and adverse effects of cancer treatment has important implications for patients' decision making, expectations, and mood. This study sought to identify the degree to which patients and clinicians agreed upon the goals and adverse effects of treatment (ie, concordance). METHODS: Patients completed a demographic questionnaire, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Treatment Satisfaction-General questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being questionnaire, and a 13-item questionnaire about the goals and adverse effects of treatment. Providers completed a 12-item questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred patients (51 female) and 34 providers participated (questionnaire return rate mean difference, 5 days; SD, 16 days). Patient and provider dyads agreed 61% of the time regarding the intent of treatment. In cases of nonagreement, 36% of patients reported more optimistic therapy goals compared to providers. Patients and providers agreed 69% of the time regarding the patient's acknowledgement and understanding of adverse effects. Patients who reported an understanding of likely adverse effects endorsed significantly lower distress scores (mean, 2.5) than those who endorsed not understanding associated adverse effects (mean, 4.1; P = .008). CONCLUSION: Timely data capturing of patient-provider dyadic ratings is feasible. A significant discrepancy exists between a substantial percentage of patients' and providers' views of the intent and adverse effects of treatment. Patients were almost always more optimistic about the intent of treatment. Higher rates of distress were noted in cases of discordance. Providers may benefit from conversational feedback from patients as well as other integrated feedback systems to inform them about patient understanding.