(1) Background: Studies examining the psychosocial impact of living long term on systemic treatment in advanced cancer patients are scarce. This scoping review aimed to answer the research question “What has been reported about psychosocial factors among patients living with advanced cancer receiving life-long systemic treatment?”, by synthesizing psychosocial data, and evaluating the terminology used to address these patients; (2) Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the five stages of the framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005); (3) Results: 141 articles published between 2000 and 2021 (69% after 2015) were included. A large variety of terms referring to the patient group was observed. Synthesizing qualitative studies identified ongoing uncertainty, anxiety and fear of disease progression or death, hope in treatment results and new treatment options, loss in several aspects of life, and worries about the impact of disease on loved ones and changes in social life to be prominent psychosocial themes. Of 82 quantitative studies included in the review, 76% examined quality of life, 46% fear of disease progression or death, 26% distress or depression, and 4% hope, while few studies reported on adaptation or cognitive aspects. No quantitative studies focused on uncertainty, loss, or social impact; (4) Conclusion and clinical implications: Prominent psychosocial themes reported in qualitative studies were not included in quantitative research using specific validated questionnaires. More robust studies using quantitative research designs should be conducted to further understand these psychological constructs. Furthermore, the diversity of terminology found in the literature calls for a uniform definition to better address this specific patient group in research and in practice.

Introduction: Increasing cannabis legalization raises concerns that the use of tobacco, frequently used with cannabis, will also increase. This study investigated the association between the legal status of cannabis in places of residence and the prevalence of cannabis and tobacco co-use, simultaneous use, and mixing by comparing the prevalence among adults in Canada (prior to cannabis legalization) vs. adults in US states that had legalized recreational cannabis vs. US states that had not as of September 2018. Methods: Data were drawn from the 2018 International Cannabis Policy Study, conducted with respondents aged 16–65 in Canada and the US recruited from nonprobability consumer panels. Differences in the prevalence of co-use, simultaneous use, and mixing between tobacco and different cannabis products were examined using logistic regression models by legal status of place of residence among past-12-month cannabis consumers (N = 6744). Results: Co-use and simultaneous use in the past 12 months were most common among respondents in US legal states. Among cannabis consumers, co-use and simultaneous use were less common in US legal states, while mixing was less frequent in US states with both legal and illegal cannabis compared to Canada. Use of edibles was associated with lower odds of all three outcomes, while smoking dried herb or hash was associated with higher odds. Conclusions: The proportion of cannabis consumers who used tobacco was lower in legal jurisdictions despite higher prevalence of cannabis use. Edible use was inversely associated with co-use, suggesting that edible use does not appear to be associated with increased tobacco use.

Survivorship care plans aim to facilitate a smooth transition from tertiary to primary care settings after primary cancer treatment is completed. This study sought to identify the sociodemographic factors associated with receiving a survivorship care plan and examine the relationship between receiving a plan and confidence in follow-up care delivered by primary care providers. A cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition Study was conducted (n = 9970). Separate adjusted multinomial logistic regression models assessed the relationship between survivorship care plans and follow-up care outcomes. Proportion of survivors more likely to receive a survivorship care plan varied by numerous sociodemographic and medical factors, such as cancer type (colorectal and prostate), gender (male), and education (high school or less). In unadjusted and adjusted models, individuals who received a Survivorship Care Plan had significantly higher odds of: having felt their primary care providers were involved; agreeing that their primary care providers understood their needs, knew where to find supports and services, and were able to refer them directly to services; and were confident that their primary care provider could meet their follow-up care needs.

Objectives: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is the number one unmet psychosocial need of cancer survivors. Fortunately, several interventions have demonstrated their efficacy in reducing FCR in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including the Fear of Recurrence Therapy (FORT) intervention, a 6‐week, cognitive‐existential group therapy. However, few interventions are implemented in routine clinical care. The present study aims to document pre‐implementation facilitators and barriers from the perspectives of clinicians and decision‐makers to prepare the implementation of FORT in Canadian cancer centers. Methods: This mixed‐methods comparative case study evaluated the process of implementing FORT in 5 Canadian clinical sites. Prior to implementation, we conducted individual semi‐structured interviews with clinicians and decision‐makers at each site, based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to uncover barriers and facilitators of implementation. Content analysis was performed on the interviews using the NVivo template provided by the CFIR. Results: We interviewed 20 managers/decision‐makers and clinicians who reported facilitators common to all sites: (1) an awareness of the need for an FCR intervention; (2) the perceived benefit of FORT's group format to reduce waitlists for individual FCR services; and (3) that offering an evidence‐based intervention was within the mission of their institution. All sites identified staff shortage and concerns for equitable access to FORT as the main barriers. Each site had additional unique barriers. Conclusion: This analysis of facilitators and barriers will directly contribute to the selection of site‐specific strategies and tools to optimize the implementation of FORT.

Despite advances in cancer care, disparities persist. The collection of the social determinants of health (SDOH) is fundamental to addressing disparities. However, SDOH are inconsistently collected in many regions of the world. This two-phase multiple methods study examined patient and community perspectives regarding SDOH data collection in Canada. In phase 1, a survey was administered to patients at a cancer centre (n = 549) to assess perspectives on an SDOH data collection tool. In phase 2, broader perspectives were sought through a community consultation with patient partners experiencing structural inequality (n = 15). Most participants were comfortable with SDOH data collection. Of survey respondents, 95% were comfortable with the collection of language, birthplace, sex, gender, education, and disability, and 82% to 94% were comfortable with SES, sexual orientation, social support, and race/ethnicity. Discomfort levels did not differ across subgroups, except women were more uncomfortable disclosing SES (OR: 2.00; 95%CI: 1.26, 3.19). Most (71%) preferred face-to-face data collection with a healthcare professional and only half were comfortable with storage of SDOH in electronic health records. Open-ended survey responses (n = 1533) and the community consultation revealed concerns about privacy, discrimination, relevance to care, and data accuracy. SDOH data collection efforts should include a clear rationale for patients, training for providers, strong data privacy and security measures, and actionable strategies to address needs.