Objective: Evidence suggests benefits of long‐term follow‐up care attendance for childhood cancer survivors, but studies show poor inclusion of survivorship issues and needs. While information needs of childhood cancer survivors have been addressed previously, few studies specifically investigated the supportive care needs of survivors beyond the domain of information and communication. Therefore, this qualitative study aimed to assess the unmet needs of childhood cancer survivors with regards to their long‐term survivorship.Methods: Childhood Cancer Switzerland invited survivors of childhood cancer to participate in our study. We used semistructured interviews to assess survivors' experiences regarding the impact of their disease and the (un)met needs during their survivorship. Data analysis followed the principles of qualitative content analysis.Results: Interviews were conducted with 28 childhood cancer survivors (mean age 31 years, age at diagnosis 9 years, time since end of treatment 19 years). Key themes in relation to unmet needs of survivors were (1) lacking psychosocial support, (2) lacking collaboration and decentralization of care, (3) starting from zero, and (4) need for centralized, specialized, and individualized services.Conclusions: Our findings revealed a demand for integrating psychosocial support in long‐term follow‐up care and a strong need for personalized, centralized, and interdisciplinary long‐term follow‐up care. Current established interdisciplinary clinics should be further extended to provide centralized, personalized, and evidence‐based long‐term follow‐up care including adequate psychosocial support for all childhood cancer survivors.

Background: The long-term consequences of childhood cancer have received increasing attention due to the growing number of survivors over the past decades. However, insurance hardships of survivors are mostly unknown. This study explored qualitatively, in a sample of childhood cancer survivors (CCS), (i) the experiences and needs of CCS living in Switzerland with a special focus on hardships related to insurance; and (ii) the views of insurance and law experts with experience on childhood cancer.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 childhood cancer survivors and 3 experts (one legal expert, two insurance experts). Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis.Results: Three key themes emerged from the interviews with the CCS: 1) experiences with insurance, 2) perception of discrimination, and 3) needs and barriers for support. The interviewed experts provided further detailed clarification of CCS’ concerns. Our findings indicated that some CCS can move past their cancer history, while others continue to face hardships. CCS reported confusion about the opportunities and services within the social security system and most relied on their personal contacts for guidance. Finally, CCS expressed a strong need for socio-economic and legal support for social insurance questions, especially related to disability insurance.Conclusions: With the growing population of CCS, it is essential to further assess the interplay between medical and psychosocial health and socio-economic hardship. Supportive psychosocial services should aim to ameliorate insurance hardships. Better understanding of the relationship between childhood cancer and insurance hardships during survivorship will inform efforts to improve long-term financial security and health outcomes for survivors. We call for the public, lawmakers, researchers, insurers, and patient organizations to come together and discuss future perspectives to avoid the risk of discrimination for cancer survivors.

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.