Objective: Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI‐SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics.Methods: This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI‐SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool.Results: IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI‐SF (range 0–36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis.Conclusions: FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR.The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

Background. Little is known about the community psychological and behavioral responses to influenza pandemics.Methods. Using random digit dialing, we

Individuals with cancer and their families assume responsibility for management of cancer as an acute and chronic disease. Yet, cancer lags other chronic diseases in its provision of proactive self-management support in routine, everyday care leaving this population vulnerable to worse health status, long-term disability, and poorer survival. Enabling cancer patients to manage the medical and emotional consequences and lifestyle and work changes due to cancer and treatment is essential to optimizing health and recovery across the continuum of cancer. In this paper, the Global Partners on Self-Management in Cancer puts forth six priority areas for action: Action 1: Prepare patients and survivors for active involvement in care; Action 2: Shift the care culture to support patients as partners in cocreating health and embed self-management support in everyday health-care provider practices and in care pathways; Action 3: Prepare the workforce in the knowledge and skills necessary to enable patients in effective self-management and reach consensus on core curricula; Action 4: Establish and reach consensus on a patient-reported outcome system for measuring the effects of self-management support and performance accountability; Action 5: Advance the evidence and stimulate research on self-management and self-management support in cancer populations; Action 6: Expand reach and access to self-management support programs across care sectors and tailored to diversity of need and stimulation of research to advance knowledge. It is time for a revolution to better integrate self-management support as part of high-quality, person-centered support and precision medicine in cancer care to optimize health outcomes, accelerate recovery, and possibly improve survival.

Few studies have investigated associations between psychological and behavioral indices throughout a major epidemic. This study was aimed to compare the strength of associations between different cognitive and affective measures of risk and self-reported protective behaviors in a series of ten cross-sectional surveys conducted throughout the first wave of influenza A/H1N1 pandemic.

Vaccination was a core component for mitigating the 2009 influenza pandemic (pH1N1). However, a vaccination program's efficacy largely depends on population compliance. We examined general population decision-making for pH1N1 vaccination using a modified Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP). We conducted a longitudinal study, collecting data before and after the introduction of pH1N1 vaccine in Hong Kong. Structural equation modeling (SEM) tested if a modified TPB had explanatory utility for vaccine uptake among adults. Among 896 subjects who completed both the baseline and the follow-up surveys, 7% (67/896) reported being “likely/very likely/certain” to be vaccinated (intent) but two months later only 0.8% (7/896) reported having received pH1N1 vaccination. Perception of low risk from pH1N1 (60%) and concerns regarding adverse effects of the vaccine (37%) were primary justifications for avoiding pH1N1 vaccination. Greater perceived vaccine benefits (β = 0.15), less concerns regarding vaccine side-effects (β = −0.20), greater adherence to social norms of vaccination (β = 0.39), anticipated higher regret if not vaccinated (β = 0.47), perceived higher self-efficacy for vaccination (β = 0.12) and history of seasonal influenza vaccination (β = 0.12) were associated with higher intention to receive the pH1N1 vaccine, which in turn predicted self-reported vaccination uptake (β = 0.30). Social norm (β = 0.70), anticipated regret (β = 0.19) and vaccination intention (β = 0.31) were positively associated with, and accounted for 70% of variance in vaccination planning, which, in turn subsequently predicted self-reported vaccination uptake (β = 0.36) accounting for 36% of variance in reported vaccination behaviour. Perceived low risk from pH1N1 and perceived high risk from pH1N1 vaccine inhibited pH1N1 vaccine uptake. Both the TPB and the additional components contributed to intended vaccination uptake but social norms and anticipated regret predominantly associated with vaccination intention and planning. Vaccination planning is a more significant proximal determinant of uptake of pH1N1 vaccine than is intention. Intention alone is an unreliable predictor of future vaccine uptake.