Background: This study aims to compare the development, characteristics and validity of two widely used tools in the breast cancer population, the EORTC QLQ-BR23 and the FACT-B. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. Results: Both tools were found to be reliable and valid. The QLQ-BR23 focuses on physical function, whereas the FACT-B emphasizes emotional well-being. Scoring, item format, organization and response options differ between questionnaires. Conclusion: Overall, both questionnaires are effective in assessing breast cancer-specific quality of life. Clear similarities and differences between the two tools exist. Decision-making between the questionnaires should be based on the purpose and design of the study.

This review aims to compare and contrast the development, characteristics and validity of two widely used quality of life assessment tools in patients with prostate cancers: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-PR25) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACT-P). Both questionnaires present several strengths as well as some limitations in measuring the quality of life of prostate cancer patients. Each tool may be selected accordingly based on study design and needs.

Suicide rates are up to 4 times greater in cancer compared with the general population, yet best practices for institutional suicide prevention are unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the association between suicide risk screening (SRS), clinician response, and suicide mortality at a comprehensive cancer treatment center. We conducted a naturalistic, retrospective cohort study of patients attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, where routine screening for suicidal intent within the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART-SRS) was implemented in 2010. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate the impact of DART-SRS completion on suicide mortality from 2005 to 2014. Chart audits were conducted for clinician response to suicidality, and crude suicide rates over the study period were analyzed. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Among 78 650 cancer patients, 89 (0.1%) died by suicide, of whom only 4 (4.5%) had completed DART-SRS. Among DART-SRS completers (n = 14 517), 69 (0.5%) reported suicidal intent, none of whom died by suicide. DART-SRS completion was associated with increased clinician response to suicidality (17.4% vs 6.7%, P = .04), more psychosocial service usage (30.5% vs 18.3%, P < .001), and lower suicide mortality (hazard ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.31). Crude suicide rates at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were lower in patients whose first contact year was after DART-SRS implementation. DART-SRS completion is associated with lower suicide mortality and increased access to psychosocial care, but patients who did not complete DART-SRS were at highest suicide risk. Further research is needed to identify mechanisms to ensure psychosocial and suicidality assessment in cancer patients who do not complete SRS.

This article reviews the literature reporting empirically determined symptom clusters in patients with metastatic cancer. A literature search was conducted on symptom clusters within heterogeneous metastatic cancer patient populations using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies examining predetermined symptom clusters were excluded. A total of eight relevant studies published between 2005 and 2011 were identified. The number of symptom clusters extracted varied from two to eight clusters per study, comprising of two to eight symptoms per cluster. There were no clusters consistently identified within all eight studies. Notable differences in symptoms assessed, assessment tools, statistical analysis, patient demographics were observed between the studies. The lack of consensus among the inter-study symptom clusters are likely due to the differences in patient population as well as study methodology. Further exploration in metastatic symptom cluster research will ideally improve patient outcomes by facilitating improved symptom management in future clinical practice.

Background: Palliative cancer patients often require clinic or hospital follow-up after any treatment intervention they may have received. This is typically done in person at either a hospital or a clinic. In these advanced cancer patients, this may be burdensome and result in attrition. Telephone follow-up is becoming more frequently used as an adjunct to clinical follow-up. It can be conducted for both clinical trials, as well as interventional purposes. The purpose of this study was to review the literature and examine the utility and effectiveness of telephone follow-up in the advanced cancer population. Methods: A literature search was conducted on Medline (1980 – April week 4 2012), Embase (1980 – week 17 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2012) and CINAHL (1981–July 31 2012). Results: A total of 11 studies were identified that were published between 2001 and 2011. All studies were in the clinical trial setting. Studies that utilized telephone follow-up in the advanced cancer population, as well as studies that compared the feasibility of telephone follow-up with hospital follow-up, were included in this review. Follow-up at week 4 (month 1) was the most common interval for patient contact. Information collected during the contact varied with the study; however, the most commonly used tool was the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Other information included analgesic diary, patient feedback, satisfaction with the care and post-treatment side effects, along with a variety of quality of life questionnaires. Some studies provided information to the patient about protocols for care, advice and coping strategies. Attrition was common even with the use of telephone contact in place of clinical follow-up. Conclusion: Telephone follow-up is a feasible alternative to traditional hospital follow-ups for assessment of symptom palliation. There are fewer burdens on the patient, allowing for a better maintenance of quality of life and lower rates of attrition in clinical trials. Patients had an overall positive opinion of the use of this alternative approach with no common disadvantages. A combination of follow-up strategies, such as clinic follow-up and telephone contact for those not attending, may result in a more comprehensive assessment.

Background: Like other chronic viral illnesses, HIV infection necessitates consistent self-management and adherence to care and treatment, which in turn relies on optimal collaboration between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and clinical care coordinators. By providing people living with HIV (PLHIV) with access to their personal health information, educational material, and a communication channel with HCPs, a tailored patient portal could support their engagement in care. Our team intends to implement a patient portal in HIV-specialized clinics in Canada and France. We sought to understand the perceived risks and benefits among PLHIV and HCPs of patient portal use in HIV clinical care. Methods: This qualitative study recruited PLHIV and HIV-specialized HCPs, through maximum variation sampling and purposeful sampling, respectively. Semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs) were held separately with PLHIV and HCPs between August 2019 and January 2020. FGDs were recorded, transcribed, coded using NVivo 12 software, and analyzed using content analysis. Results: A total of twenty-eight PLHIV participated in four FGDs, and thirty-one HCPs participated in six FGDs. PLHIV included eighteen men, nine women, and one person identifying as other; while, HCPs included ten men, twenty women, and one person identifying as other. A multi-disciplinary team of HCPs were included, involving physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and clinical coordinators. Participants identified five potential risks: (1) breach of confidentiality, (2) stress or uncertainty, (3) contribution to the digital divide, (4) dehumanization of care, and (5) increase in HCPs’ workload. They also highlighted four main benefits of using a patient portal: (1) improvement in HIV self-management, (2) facilitation of patient visits, (3) responsiveness to patient preferences, and (4) fulfillment of current or evolving patient needs. Conclusion: PLHIV and HCPs identified both risks and benefits of using a patient portal in HIV care. By engaging stakeholders and understanding their perspectives, the configuration of a patient portal can be optimized for end-users and concerns may be mitigated during its implementation.