Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice最新文献

Background: The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) is a multidisciplinary professional network that aims to improve psychosocial care for individuals impacted by cancer. IPOS encourages research activity, recognizing that a high-quality evidence base is essential to provide best-practice, data-driven clinical care. This study aimed to determine the barriers to research involvement and the training needs and priorities of IPOS members, with the goal of facilitating the development of training resources tailored to the needs of IPOS members.

Methods: A link to an online, cross-sectional survey was disseminated to all registered members of IPOS via email. The online survey platform SimpleSurvey was used, and questions included demographic characteristics and items related to research interests, involvement, and training needs. High priority research training needs were identified as research tasks respondents rated as highly important, yet possessed a low perceived skill level in.

Results: Thirty-two percent of IPOS members (n = 142) completed the survey. Participants represented 49 countries and were at a variety of career stages. Overall, participants reported spending an average of 17.3 hours per week on research (range 0-80 hours per week), with 69% of respondents wanting to increase their research involvement. The main barriers to research participation included lack of research funding (80%) and lack of protected time (63%). IPOS members identified 5 high-priority training needs: preparing successful grant applications; preparing research budgets; community-based participatory research; working with decision makers; and finding collaborators or expert consultants. Participants suggested funding access, statistical advisors, and networking and mentorship opportunities as ways to enhance research involvement. Members preferred online training modules (39%) and mentorship programs (19%) as methods by which IPOS could provide research support. IPOS was viewed as being able to contribute to many aspects of research capacity building such as networking, training, and dissemination of research findings.

Conclusions: IPOS has an important role in encouraging research capacity building among members. This survey provides an agenda for workshops and training opportunities. Mainly, for respondents it was less about training in research methods and more about training in how to prepare successful grant applications, including budgets, and receiving mentorship on this as well as having opportunities to collaborate with other researchers.

Background: We describe post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in parents of long-term childhood cancer survivors (CCS-parents) and compare them to parents of similar-aged children (comparison-parents) of the Swiss general population (SGP). We compare type of reported stressful event, prevalence of PTSS and PTSD, and psychosocial and cancer-related characteristics associated with PTSS. We further describe the respective normative data for the SGP.

Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire survey in a population-based sample of long-term CCS-parents (survivors aged ≤16 years at diagnosis, ≥20 years at study, >5 years post-diagnosis) and in the SGP. Using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, we measured PTSS regarding the most stressful event experienced, and computed probable cases of PTSD.

Results: Participants included 663 CCS-parents (39.4% fathers) and 1035 individuals of the SGP (40.0% male), of which we identified 391 comparison-parents (41.2% fathers). Illness was most often indicated as stressful event (CCS-parents: 49.5%, comparison-parents: 27.6%, SGP: 25.3%). Prevalence of PTSS and PTSD (CCS-parents: 4.8%, comparison-parents: 6.7%, SGP: 5.6%) did not significantly differ. Lower education was associated with higher intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal in all samples (all P ≤ .003). Parents of children with a chronic illness reported higher intrusion (all P ≤ .004). We found no associations with cancer-related characteristics.

Conclusions: No increased risk for PTSS or PTSD was found among CCS-parents. Individuals with lower education and those with a chronically ill child might benefit from additional support to help manage and resolve the stress symptoms in the long term.

Background: Latino cancer patients are at risk of poor psychological adjustment. Therapeutic effectiveness in treating Latino cancer patients with advanced cancer requires managing distress, therapeutic skill, and cultural competency. This mixed-methods study explored mental health providers' perceptions of the challenging aspects of counseling and caring for Latino patients with advanced cancer.

Methods: Mental health providers providing services to Latino or Hispanic cancer patients received an emailed web-based survey with open- and closed-ended questions. Providers included psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, and other mental health professionals. We invited 154 providers to participate from July 2015 to January 2017. One hundred and four accessed the survey, and 66 eligible providers responded, for a response rate of 43%. Analyses were used to explore whether clinical experience factors and training characteristics were associated with perceiving conversations about cancer (diagnosis, prognosis, and end-of-life) as challenging. Second, the challenging aspects of these conversations were explored qualitatively. Four independent coders coded responses; an inductive content analysis was utilized to analyze the data.

Results: Mental health providers describe encountering many challenges in their therapeutic discussions with Latino cancer patients.

Conclusions: It is imperative to understand the factors associated with the perceived difficulty of these conversations, as well as the characteristics of these conversations, to develop culturally sensitive interventions and programs for patients and training interventions for providers.

Objective: In a previously published trial, we compared the effect of an intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET) and a General Health and Wellness intervention (GHW) on psychological and relationship outcomes among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Results suggested partial effects of IET on psychological adjustment and relationship satisfaction. To understand these partial effects, the first aim of this study was to evaluate self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, perceived partner responsiveness, and levels of intimacy rated after sessions, and the second aim of this study was to examine the role of pre-treatment holding back on these intimacy processes.

Methods: A total of 156 couples who participated in treatment reported on self- and perceived partner disclosure, responsiveness, and intimacy during sessions. Participants rated levels of holding back before treatment. Linear growth models were estimated using multilevel modeling. Each intimacy process variable was predicted to be a function of time, role, condition, and all interactions among these variables. The effects of own and partner pretreatment holding back on average intimacy process and change in intimacy process were tested in moderated growth models.

Results: Self- and perceived partner disclosure were significantly higher during IET sessions than GHW sessions. Self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness increased in both IET and GHW. Intimacy was not higher and did not increase more in IET compared with GHW. Participants who held back reported that their partner disclosed less to them during sessions, perceived that their partner was less responsive to them during sessions, and reported less intimacy during sessions. Partners of participants who held back were seen as less responsive and their interactions were seen as less intimate.

Conclusions: Although IET focused on enhancing couples' responsiveness and intimacy, it did not have a stronger effect on these processes during sessions than GHW. The lack of an effect may, in part, be because of the fact that IET did not help those couples who may have been in the greatest need for it because they held back more.