Background: Despite advancements in cancer treatment, chemotherapy side effects significantly impact patients both physically and emotionally. While pharmacological treatments can mitigate these side effects, they may trigger additional side effects, exacerbating the overall discomfort experienced by patients; moreover, psychological factors influencing physical symptoms are beyond the reach of pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, however, offer the potential for complementary or alternative solutions. Objectives: This review aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in managing the physical side effects of chemotherapy. Methods: This review, based on a search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases, identified 46 relevant studies. It categorizes interventions and evaluates their effectiveness in managing common chemotherapy side effects (fatigue, nausea, pain, diarrhea, and constipation). Results: Guided imagery, tailored exercises, and Qigong show promise in reducing fatigue, while interventions like yoga and cognitive-behavioral approaches address nausea and vomiting. Pain benefits result from guided imagery and educational interventions. Limited evidence exists for diarrhea and constipation interventions, necessitating further research. Conclusions: This review offers provisional conclusions, emphasizing the potential of integrating evidence-based nonpharmacological approaches alongside pharmacological interventions to enhance patient outcomes and reduce chemotherapy-induced side effects, considering factors such as accessibility, safety, customization, and adaptability in clinical settings.

Background: Cancer remains a leading cause of death, with 9.7 million deaths in 2022. Despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, many cancer patients experience side effects that significantly impact their quality of life, including chronic pain, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and cancer-related fatigue. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as yoga, have gained attention for their potential to reduce stress and improve overall well-being. However, barriers such as fatigue, pain, and transportation issues limit access to in-person yoga, leading to the growing adoption of online yoga as a viable alternative. Objective: This systematic review synthesizes research on the effectiveness of online yoga for cancer patients. A comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases on 24 October 2024. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the CASP Checklist. Of 6266 articles initially identified, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising qualitative (n = 4) and quantitative (n = 10) studies. Results: The results suggest that online yoga can improve stress and sleep quality, with moderate effects on anxiety, depression, and fatigue. However, variability in study designs and methodological limitations complicate the evaluation of its overall effectiveness. Conclusions: Online yoga offers a practical, accessible option for cancer patients unable to attend in-person sessions, showing the potential to enhance mental and physical health outcomes. Nevertheless, the variability in study methodologies highlights the need for more standardized research to establish its role as a supportive intervention in oncology care.

Background: The digital transition is reshaping healthcare systems through the adoption of telemedicine and electronic health records (EHRs). While these innovations enhance efficiency and access, their implementation unfolds within overstretched organizational settings characterized by workforce shortages, bureaucratic demands, and heightened psychosocial risks. Burnout, impostor syndrome, and the quality of organizational support have thus become pivotal constructs in understanding healthcare professionals’ digital preparedness. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 111 professionals employed at two San Donato Group facilities in Bologna, Italy. The battery included socio-demographic and occupational data, perceptions of digitalization, and validated instruments: the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), and the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire (WOAQ). Descriptive analyses were complemented by Classification and Regression Trees (CART) to identify predictors of perceived digital preparedness. Results: Most respondents (88%) acknowledged the relevance of digitalization, yet 18% felt unprepared, especially women and administrative staff. Burnout levels were high, with 51% reporting emotional exhaustion, most notably among nurses and female participants. Impostor syndrome affected 43% of the sample, with nurses exhibiting the highest prevalence. CART analysis identified emotional exhaustion, impostor syndrome, and age as principal discriminators of digital preparedness. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the role of emotional exhaustion, impostor syndrome, and age in shaping perceived digital preparedness, underscoring the need for tailored training and supportive practices to ensure a sustainable digital transition.

Aims: Research and policy initiatives for type 1 diabetes (T1D) across European countries demonstrate an emergent, critical shift towards universal paediatric screening. National adaptations of screening, however, remain under‐researched. The current study, as part of the EU‐funded EDENT1FI programme, aimed to examine the psychosocial impact and acceptability of screening according to local contexts and regions. Methods: The EDENT1FI screening research programme includes 27 partners involved in implementing screening across eight European countries—four countries already implementing national or local research screening programmes and four countries that are new adopters. The study consists of four sub‐studies with assessments performed at five timepoints, from screening baseline to insulin‐requiring T1D: (1) we examine the screening‐specific psychological impact on families using a novel questionnaire for parents of screened children; (2) we further measure the psychological wellbeing of parents by administering validated questionnaires; (3) we explore parental acceptability through semi‐structured interviews and (4) we explore professional stakeholder acceptability via semi‐structured interviews. Data analysis will integrate questionnaire responses and thematic analysis for the interviews. Results: Findings should provide a deeper understanding of the psychosocial aspects of universal paediatric screening measured longitudinally. The experience of implementation context across countries will be harmonised with the attitudes towards and practices of screening to inform best practice for scaling up universal screening. Conclusions: The study will provide essential insights into how best a general population screening program for T1D can be integrated into existing European health systems.

Early screening for type 1 diabetes (T1D) is receiving increasing attention as presymptomatic screening initiatives and disease‐modifying therapies continue to expand. However, the perspectives of professional stakeholders, who play a pivotal role in implementation, patient engagement, and health system preparedness, have not been systematically synthesised. We conducted a systematic review to examine professional views on paediatric early T1D screening. Following PRISMA guidelines, six databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA) and grey literature were searched through January 2026. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, predominantly involving paediatricians and diabetes specialists; nurses, genetic counsellors, policymakers, and other healthcare professionals were represented in few studies. Methodological appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) identified recurring limitations in sample representativeness and potential nonresponse bias. Given the heterogeneity and primarily descriptive nature of the study design and outcomes, findings were synthesised narratively. Professional perspectives varied according to the population targeted, professional group studied, screening scenario, and the implementation context. Where directly compared, support was greater for at‐risk than for general‐population screening. Reported benefits included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prevention, earlier clinical engagement, and improved preparedness for families. However, concerns persisted regarding psychosocial burden, workforce capacity, and unclear referral and follow‐up pathways. More favourable evaluations were reported in some structured programmes, although these findings may reflect reliance on existing infrastructures and targeted participant selection. By consolidating previously fragmented evidence, this review identifies recurring clinical, psychosocial, and organisational considerations relevant to paediatric T1D screening. These findings primarily reflect clinical perspectives and indicate conditional rather than uniform support. Further studies should evaluate how standardised pathways, professional training, and integrated psychosocial support affect the feasibility and acceptability of screening across different healthcare contexts.