PurposeThis study investigates patients’ experiences of interaction with their healthcare professionals (HCPs) during cancer treatment and identifies elements that HCPs can utilize to improve cancer care provision.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies published from January 2010 until February 2022. Qualitative studies investigating adult patients’ perspectives on their interaction with HCPs during cancer treatment were included. Studies conducted during the diagnosis or end-of-life treatment phase were excluded. Duplicate removal, screening, and quality appraisal were independently performed by four reviewers using Covidence.org. We performed a thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative data extracted from studies meeting the quality criteria in three stages: excerpts coding, codes categorization, and theme identification by merging similar categories.ResultsEighty-eight studies were included for quality appraisal, of which 50 papers met the quality inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified as essential to positively perceived patient-HCP interaction: “Support, respect and agency”, “Quantity, timing, and clarity of information”, and “Confidence, honesty, and expertise”. Overall, patients experienced positive interaction with HCPs when the approach was person-centered and when HCPs possessed strong interpersonal skills. However, patients expressed negative experiences when their preferences regarding communication and the type of personal support needed were ignored.ConclusionsThis meta-synthesis emphasizes the importance for HCPs to recognize all patients’ needs, including communication and personal support preferences, to provide high-quality care. Consequently, healthcare professionals should continuously train their verbal and non-verbal communication, empathy, active listening, and collaboration skills during their undergraduate and continuing education.
MULTIFILE
Across all health care settings, certain patients are perceived as ‘difficult’ by clinicians. This paper’s aim is to understand how certain patients come to be perceived and labelled as ‘difficult’ patients in community mental health care, through mixed-methods research in The Netherlands between June 2006 and October 2009. A literature review, a Delphi-study among experts, a survey study among professionals, a Grounded Theory interview study among ‘difficult’ patients, and three case studies of ‘difficult’ patients were undertaken. Analysis of the results of these qualitative and quantitative studies took place within the concept of the sick role, and resulted in the construction of a tentative explanatory model. The ‘difficult’ patient-label is associated with professional pessimism, passive treatment and possible discharge or referral out of care. The label is given by professionals when certain patient characteristics are present and a specific causal attribution (psychological, social or moral versus neurobiological) about the patient’s behaviours is made. The status of ‘difficult’ patient is easily reinforced by subsequent patient and professional behaviour, turning initial unusual help-seeking behaviour into ‘difficult’ or ineffective chronic illness behaviour, and ineffective professional behaviour. These findings illustrate that the course of mental illness, or at least the course of patients’ contact with mental health professionals and services, is determined by patient and professional and reinforced by the social and mental health care system. This model adds to the broader sick role concept a micro-perspective in which attribution and learning principles are incorporated. On a practical level, it implies that professionals need to look into their own role in the perpetuation of difficult behaviours as described here.
Background: Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients’ preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients’ preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. Objective: The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. Methods: The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. Results: A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (β=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (β=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms.
MULTIFILE
