Experiences and needs of patients with incurable cancer regarding advance care planning:results from a national cross-sectional survey

Introduction: Patients faced with incurable cancer may experience a lack of support from their physician throughout and after treatment. Studies on the needs and experiences of these patients are scarce. In this study, we explored the needs and experiences of patients diagnosed with incurable cancer regarding the conversation, in which they were told that their cancer was incurable, the care received after this conversation, and their preferences regarding end-of-life conversations. Methods: Data were cross-sectionally collected through a national online survey in the Netherlands (September 2018). Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were reported and subgroups were compared. Results: Six hundred fifty-four patients (mean age 60 years; 58% women) completed the survey. Patients were primarily diagnosed with breast cancer (22%) or a hematological malignancy (21%). Patients reported a strong need for emotional support during the conversation, in which they were told their cancer was incurable (mean score 8.3; scale 1–10). Their experienced satisfaction with received emotional support was mediocre (mean score 6.4; scale 1–10). Of those patients who felt like they did not receive any additional care (37%) after the diagnosis, the majority expressed a clear need for this kind of care (59%). Mostly, support pertained to psychosocial issues. Regarding conversations about the end of life, most patients (62%) expressed a need to discuss this topic, and preferred their healthcare provider to initiate this conversation. Conclusion: Care for patients with incurable cancer can be further improved by tailoring conversations to specific needs and timely providing appropriate supportive care services

Cancer survivors' experiences with conversations about work-related issues in the hospital setting

Objective: Early access to work-related psychosocial cancer care can contribute to return to work of cancer survivors. We aimed to explore: (a) the extent to which hospital healthcare professionals conduct conversations about work-related issues with cancer survivors, (b) whether cancer survivors experience these conversations as helpful, and (c) the possible financial implications for cancer survivors of (not) discussing their work early on. Methods: The Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organizations developed and conducted a cross-sectional online survey, consisting of 27 items, among cancer survivors in the Netherlands. Results: In total, 3500 survivors participated in this study (71% female; mean age (SD) 56 (11) years). Thirty-two percent reported to have had a conversation about work-related issues with a healthcare professional in the hospital. Fifty-four percent indicated that this conversation had been helpful to them. Conversations about work-related issues took place more frequently with male cancer survivors, those aged 55 years or below, those diagnosed with gynecological, prostate, breast, and hematological or lymphatic cancer, those diagnosed ≤2 years ago, or those who received their last treatment ≤2 years ago. There was no statistically significant association between the occurrence of conversations about work-related issues and experiencing the financial consequences of cancer and/or its treatment as burdensome. Conclusions: Although conversations about work-related issues are generally experienced as helpful by cancer survivors, early access to work-related psychosocial cancer care in the hospital setting is not yet systematically offered

Differences in health care experiences between rare cancer and common cancer patients: results from a national cross-sectional survey

Background: Patients with rare cancers face challenges in the diagnostic and treatment phase, and in access to clinical expertise. Since studies on health care experiences of these patients in comparison to patients with more common cancers are scarce, we aimed to explore these differences. Methods: Data were cross-sectionally collected among (former) adult cancer patients through a national online survey in the Netherlands (October 2019). Descriptive statistics were reported and subgroups (rare vs. common patients) were compared. Results: In total, 7343 patients (i.e., 1856 rare and 5487 common cancer patients) participated. Rare cancer patients were more often diagnosed and treated in different hospitals compared to common cancer patients (67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001). Rare cancer patients received treatment more often in a single hospital (60% vs. 57%, p = 0.014), but reported more negative experiences when treated in multiple hospitals than common cancer patients (14% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). They also more often received advise from their physician about the hospital to go to for a second opinion (50% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), were more likely to choose a hospital specialized in their cancer type (33% vs. 22%, p < 0.001), and were more willing to travel as long as necessary to receive specialized care than common cancer patients (55% vs. 47%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Rare and common cancer patients differ in their health care experiences. Health care for rare cancer patients can be further improved by proper referral to centers of expertise and building a clinical network specifically for rare cancers

GP involvement after a cancer diagnosis; patients' call to improve decision support

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is considered important to realise personalised cancer care. Increased GP involvement after a diagnosis is advocated to improve SDM. AIM: To explore whether patients with cancer are in need of GP involvement in cancer care in general and in SDM, and whether GP involvement occurs. DESIGN & SETTING: An online national survey was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations (NFK) in May 2019. METHOD: The survey was sent to (former) patients with cancer. Topics included GP involvement in cancer care in general and in SDM. Descriptive statistics and quotes were used. RESULTS: Among 4763 (former) patients with cancer, 59% (n = 2804) expressed a need for GP involvement in cancer care. Of these patients, 79% (n = 2193) experienced GP involvement. Regarding GP involvement in SDM, 82% of patients (n = 3724) expressed that the GP should 'listen to patients' worries and considerations', 69% (n = 3130) to 'check patients' understanding of information', 66% (n = 3006) to 'discuss patients' priorities in life and the consequences of treatment options for these priorities', and 67% (n = 3045) to 'create awareness of the patient's role in the decision making'. This happened in 47%, 17%, 15% and 10% of these patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The majority of (former) patients with cancer expressed a need for active GP involvement in cancer care. GP support in the fundamental SDM steps is presently insufficient. Therefore, GPs should be made aware of these needs and enabled to support their patients with cancer in SDM

Differences in health care experiences between rare cancer and common cancer patients: results from a national cross-sectional survey

Background: Patients with rare cancers face challenges in the diagnostic and treatment phase, and in access to clinical expertise. Since studies on health care experiences of these patients in comparison to patients with more common cancers are scarce, we aimed to explore these differences. Methods: Data were cross-sectionally collected among (former) adult cancer patients through a national online survey in the Netherlands (October 2019). Descriptive statistics were reported and subgroups (rare vs. common patients) were compared. Results: In total, 7343 patients (i.e., 1856 rare and 5487 common cancer patients) participated. Rare cancer patients were more often diagnosed and treated in different hospitals compared to common cancer patients (67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001). Rare cancer patients received treatment more often in a single hospital (60% vs. 57%, p = 0.014), but reported more negative experiences when treated in multiple hospitals than common cancer patients (14% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). They also more often received advise from their physician about the hospital to go to for a second opinion (50% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), were more likely to choose a hospital specialized in their cancer type (33% vs. 22%, p < 0.001), and were more willing to travel as long as necessary to receive specialized care than common cancer patients (55% vs. 47%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Rare and common cancer patients differ in their health care experiences. Health care for rare cancer patients can be further improved by proper referral to centers of expertise and building a clinical network specifically for rare cancers