Perceptions of lung cancer and potential impacts on funding and patient care: a qualitative study

[Impact of Oncological Treatment on Perceived Stigmatization - A Register-Based Study]

BACKGROUND

Studies on stigmatization of cancer patients show a moderate or high relevance of perceived stigmatization. To date, there are no studies with explicit focus on stigma in relation to oncological therapy. We investigated the role of oncological therapy on perceived stigma in a large sample.

METHODS

Quantitative data from 770 patients (47,4% women; 88%≥50 years) with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer were analyzed as part of a registry-based bicentric study. Stigma was assessed with the German version of the SIS-D; the validated instrument includes four subscales in addition to a total score. Data were analyzed using the t-test and multiple regression with various sociodemographic and medical predictors.

RESULTS

Of the 770 cancer patients, 367 (47,7%) received chemotherapy, possibly in combination with other therapy (surgery, radiotherapy). All stigma scales showed significant mean differences (effect sizes up to d=0,49) with higher scores for patients receiving chemotherapy. The multiple regression analyses of the respective SIS-scales demonstrate a significant influence of the variables age (ß≤- 0,266) and depressivity (ß≤0,627) on perceived stigma in all five models, and (in four models) a significant influence of the variable chemotherapy (ß≤0,140). Radiotherapy shows only a weak influence in all models and surgery has no relevance. The explained variance ranges from R2=27 to 46,5%.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The findings support the assumption of an association of oncological therapy, especially chemotherapy, on the perceived stigmatization of cancer patients. Relevant predictors are depression and younger (<50) age. These (vulnerable) groups should therefore receive special attention and psycho-oncological care in clinical practice. Further research on the course and mechanisms of therapy-related stigmatization is also necessary.

Strategic silences, eroded trust: The impact of divergent COVID-19 vaccine sentiments on healthcare workers' relations with peers and patients

BACKGROUND

Polarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients.Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage.

METHODS

Interviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients.

RESULTS

Most participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others' openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments.

DISCUSSION

Belgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in "strategic silences" around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium's, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks.

Lung Cancer Attracts Greater Stigma than Other Cancer Types in Aotearoa New Zealand

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Aotearoa New Zealand, killing over 1,700 people each year. Despite the burden of lung cancer in Aotearoa New Zealand, the popular press has referred to it as the cancer type that no one talks about. Here, we investigate one factor that may contribute to this state of affairs: lung cancer stigma.

Methods

Participants were university students and members of the general public. University students were recruited via an online experiment participation system in 2021. Members of the public were recruited via social media. All participants completed the Cancer Stigma Scale (CSS) for one of five cancer types (lung, cervical, breast, skin, or bowel). The CSS is a 25-item scale with six subscales: awkwardness, avoidance, severity, policy opposition, personal responsibility, and financial discrimination.

Results

The mean age of participants was 24.3 (Standard Deviation = 10.4). Data from each subscale were submitted to an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with cancer type as a between-participant factor (5: lung, cervical, breast, skin, or bowel) and stigma as the dependent variable. Relative to most other cancer types, people were more likely to avoid someone with lung cancer, view interacting with someone with lung cancer as more awkward, and view people with lung cancer as being responsible for their condition.

Conclusion

The Health Research Council of New Zealand recently funded the very first trial of lung cancer screening in Aotearoa New Zealand. The current study suggests that addressing stigma will be essential for the success of such programs, with stigma likely influencing those who engage in such trials.

What do people with lung cancer and stroke expect from patient navigation? A qualitative study in Germany

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study investigated patients' needs and wishes in relation to patient navigation.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study was conducted. Participants were invited to take part in three in-depth interviews over a period of 6-12 months. Thematic analysis was used.

SETTING

Interviewees were sought in the Berlin metropolitan area of Germany in academic university hospitals, in rehabilitation clinics and through self-help organisations.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer (n=20) or stroke (n=20).

RESULTS

From the perspective of interviewees, patient navigators should function as consistent contact persons, present during the whole care trajectory. Their role would be to guide patients through an often confusing healthcare landscape, offering practical, advisory and emotional assistance corresponding to patients' needs. The study shows that-independent of the disease-participants had similar expectations and needs regarding support from navigators.

CONCLUSION

For chronic and complex diseases-as is the case with lung cancer and stroke-it appears less important for navigators to fulfil disease-specific tasks. Rather, they should ensure that patients' more general needs, in relation to social, practical and emotional support, are met in a way that suits their individual wishes. Following these results, patient navigation programmes might be designed to include generic elements, which should then be adapted to the infrastructure in a particular healthcare region and to the particularities of a specific healthcare system.

Multilevel Opportunities to Address Lung Cancer Stigma across the Cancer Control Continuum

The public health imperative to reduce the burden of lung cancer has seen unprecedented progress in recent years. Fully realizing the advances in lung cancer treatment and control requires attention to potential barriers in their momentum and implementation. In this analysis, we present and evaluate the argument that stigma is a highly significant barrier to fulfilling the clinical promise of advanced care and reduced lung cancer burden. This evaluation of the stigma of lung cancer is based on a multilevel perspective that incorporates the individual, persons in the individual's immediate environment, the health care system, and the larger societal structure that shapes perceptions and decisions. We also consider current interventions and interventional needs within and across aspects of the lung cancer continuum, including prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Current evidence suggests that stigma detrimentally affects psychosocial, communication, and behavioral outcomes over the entire lung cancer control continuum and across multiple levels. Interventional efforts to alleviate stigma in the context of lung cancer show promise, yet more work is needed to evaluate their impact. Understanding and addressing the multilevel role of stigma is a crucial area for future study to realize the full benefits offered by lung cancer prevention, control, and treatment. Coordinated, interdisciplinary, and well-conceptualized efforts have the potential to reduce the barrier of stigma in the context of lung cancer and facilitate demonstrable improvements in clinical care and quality of life.

Psychosocial challenges for patients with advanced lung cancer: interventions to improve well-being

As compared to other cancers, lung malignancies are associated with high symptom burden, poorer prognosis, and stigmatization. Such factors increase psychological distress and negatively impact quality of life. Research has documented the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to alleviate psychological distress and promote well-being among patients with cancer. This article summarizes the current literature on psychosocial interventions in lung cancer. Major types of psychosocial interventions in lung cancer include cognitive-behavioral therapies, psycho-education, mind-body, exercise, and supportive or palliative care strategies. Discussion relative to the purpose, sample, research design, outcomes, and quality of the studies is presented. Findings may be useful in clinical environments as a resource to help health providers better understand mental health treatment options and care for patients facing lung cancer. The need to direct future research toward the advancement of science and improve well-being and quality of life outcomes for patients with advanced lung cancer and their family members is discussed.