Background/Objectives: Insomnia is a frequent and distressing symptom with limited treatment in patients with cancer. Among the available treatments for insomnia, psychological interventions are some of the most assessed. While studies and reviews show promise of interventions improving insomnia in patients with cancer, inconsistent approaches to operationalizing and measuring insomnia combined with the heterogeneity of available treatments render comparisons and synthetization difficult. This review sought to rigorously synthesize psychological interventions for patients with cancer and insomnia by describing current therapies, identifying gaps in the literature, and offering supportive interventions. Methods: A comprehensive search of five databases—Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, EBSCO CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Cochrane Library—was conducted through 1 August 2024. The review included randomized trials and non-inferiority trials evaluating psychological interventions for patients with various types of cancers. Twenty-one studies were included, and study quality ranged from good to excellent, according to the PEDro scale. Results: The current evidence supports the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to treat insomnia over and above psychoeducation alone, mindfulness-based stress reduction, Brief Behavioral Therapy, the Benson Relaxation Technique, progressive muscle relaxation, mindfulness meditation, mind-body bridging, and home-based psychological nursing. Digital, minimal, and internet-based intervention modalities are effective, though professional-delivered CBT proved most effective. Conclusions: CBT remains the most effective psychological intervention for insomnia in this population. Challenges exist regarding the implementation of CBT, so further research is warranted to identify the best psychological interventions for specific settings and subsets of patients with cancer.

HIV-associated vulnerabilities—especially those linked to psychological issues—and limited mental health–treatment resources have the potential to adversely affect the health statuses of individuals. The concept of resilience has been introduced in the literature to shift the emphasis from vulnerability to protective factors. Resilience, however, is an evolving construct and is measured in various ways, though rarely among underserved, minority populations. Herein, we present the preliminary psychometric properties of a sample of HIV-seropositive Puerto Rican women, measured using a newly developed health-related resilience scale. The Resilience Scales for Children and Adolescents, an instrument with solid test construction properties, acted as a model in the development (in both English and Spanish) of the HRRS, providing the same dimensions and most of the same subscales. The present sample was nested within the Hispanic-Latino longitudinal cohort of women (HLLC), that is part of the NeuroAIDS Research Program at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR), Medical Sciences Campus (MSC). Forty-five consecutively recruited, HIV+ women from the HLLC completed a demographic survey, the HRRS, and the Beck Depression Inventory-I, Spanish version. The results demonstrate excellent overall internal consistency for the total HRRS score (α = 0.95). Each of the dimensional scores also evidenced acceptable internal consistency (α ≥ 0.88). All the dimensional and subscale content validity indices were above the 0.42 cut-off. Analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between the HRRS total score and BDI-I-S (r(45) = -0.453, p < 0.003). Albeit preliminary in nature, the present study provides support for the HRRS as a measure to assess resilience among individuals living with chronic medical conditions. Minority populations, especially non-English speaking ones, are understudied across the field of medicine, and when efforts are made to include these patient groups, measurement is rarely tailored to their unique cultural and linguistic experiences. The HRRS is a measure that addresses these notable voids in the medical literature.

Objectives: Patients with non-English language preference (NELP) face significant barriers to safe and effective communication in palliative and supportive care. These barriers compromise quality, delay care, and heighten the risk of unmet psychosocial needs, particularly when compounded by health literacy concerns and limited access to translated resources. Methods: We describe two Spanish-speaking patients with advanced cancer whose inpatient and outpatient supportive care was complicated by language barriers, leading to communication gaps, including symptom misinterpretation and inadequate family discharge education. These factors contributed to significant distress and safety risks. Results: Interdisciplinary interventions, including professional interpreter use, bilingual supportive care psychology, teach-back education, medication relabeling in Spanish, and culturally tailored communication, helped restore trust, alleviate suffering, and align care with patient and family values. In one case, a lack of validated Spanish versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System within the electronic medical record (EMR) hindered symptom self-reporting and safety. Following multiple requests, the EMR team initiated development of a Spanish-language template to facilitate future integration. Significance of the results: Structural gaps in language accessibility compound distress, reduce autonomy, and threaten safety. These cases underscore that interpreter services alone are insufficient. Integrating validated multilingual tools into EMRs, standardizing translated discharge instructions, and expanding access to in-person interpreters are critical steps toward equitable care. Institutionalizing linguistically responsive systems is essential for ensuring safety, equity, and dignity in palliative care for patients with NELP.

Introduction: Palliative care professionals experience high levels stress and burnout. Meditation improves stress and well-being, with group interventions more promising than individual-level efforts. This study assessed participation, satisfaction, helpfulness, and integration of a five-minute group meditation during weekly educational rounds. Methods: Seventy clinicians were invited to complete an anonymous Qualtrics survey assessing study variables. Responses were analyzed using variations of t-tests, ANOVAs, chi-squared tests, and regression analyses in IBM SPSS (Version 23). Results: Twenty-three clinicians (59%) reported participation in meditation during rounds, with no significant differences by gender or years worked. Twenty-one respondents also engaged in meditation at least weekly outside of rounds (54%), averaging 53 minutes ( n = 21) a week, and doing so mostly after work hours ( n = 18, 72%). Participation was associated with perceived stress reduction and control, and satisfaction with meditation (odds ratio: 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.01–2.13], p = 0.05). Clinicians in psychosocial roles showed no different engagement outside of rounds, and those less engaged did not report greater time-related barriers. Discussion: Most round attendants participated in the five-minute meditation, perceived it as useful, and reported use after rounds. Findings justify further research to better characterize its potential in enhancing well-being.