Vom Ende her gedacht - ist die Frage „Krebs“ für Betroffene und Betreuer bedeutsam?

"Cancer Never Goes Out of Your Mind Even for a Single Second". Cancer-Related Ruminations From the Perspectives of Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore a deeper understanding of how cancer survivors experience and manage ruminative thoughts.

DATA SOURCES

A descriptive qualitative design. The study was conducted with cancer survivors (n = 21). A semistructured interview guide was used for data collection, and content analysis method was implemented to gain a better understanding from the collected data. The study procedure and reporting adhere to the guideline for reporting qualitative research COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) checklist.

CONCLUSION

Three main themes were developed: "Struggling within cognitions", "Coping", and "Required needs". The results highlight that cancer survivors have intrusive ruminative thoughts about cancer and need support to cope with these thoughts. It was also found that over time, they experienced changes in their perspectives, gained meaning, and were able to use deliberate ruminations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses have an effective role in providing care and determining the needs of individuals. Nurses can easily recognize intrusive ruminations, help cancer survivors raise awareness about the effects of ruminative thoughts on them, and support them in coping with intrusive ruminations using effective interventions.

The relationship between rumination, fatigue and psychological resilience among cancer survivors

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The study's purpose was to examine the association between rumination, fatigue and psychological resilience among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a disease that causes difficult lives in individuals. Individuals can struggle with cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and ruminative thoughts during and after the disease process. However, it can also be seen that some individuals make sense out of their cancer experience and turn into stronger individuals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design.

METHODS

This study was conducted from February through November 2020. Data were collected from 159 cancer survivors using Event Related Rumination Inventory, Cancer Fatigue Scale and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale.

RESULTS

The findings showed that intrusive rumination significantly and negatively mediated psychological resilience but significantly and positively mediated with CRF. In contrast, deliberate rumination was significantly and positively mediated psychological resilience but significantly and negatively mediated with CRF. The effects of intrusive and deliberate rumination on fatigue were .431 (CI =0.042-0.635) and -.285 (CI = -0.163 to 0.491), respectively. In addition, the effects of intrusive and deliberate rumination on psychological resilience were -.253 (CI = -0.177 to 0.447) and .304 (CI = 0.045-0.124), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underline the mediating role of rumination on CRF and psychological resilience among cancer survivors. The findings also delineate the associations between rumination, CRF and psychological resilience, which differ based on rumination type.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings are particularly important to oncology nurses, who are the main sources of psychosocial care. To support cancer survivors and mobilise their resources, oncology nurses should be made aware of the different types and effects of rumination. With the help of this awareness, oncology nurses can enhance managing intrusive rumination, replacing intrusive ruminations with deliberate ones, mobilising resources and promoting psychological resilience.

Psychosocial stress of dermatology inpatients and their relatives - Comparison of patients with and without cancer

BACKGROUND

In the clinical treatment pathways of certified oncological centers, psychotherapeutic services are mandatory. Although patients with somatic, non-oncological illnesses show an equally high prevalence of psychosocial stress, these guidelines do not exist for the general hospital sector. Are these patients really less burdened and is psychological support only needed in individual cases? The example of dermatological patients will be used to show whether the need for psychosocial care and the desire for support vary between individuals with and without malignant disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the Hornheider screening instrument and distress thermometer, 216 dermatological inpatients assessed their psychosocial stress and that of a close relative. In addition, they were asked about their desire for support and preferred support provider.

RESULTS

i) Patients without skin cancer were more frequently and more severely distressed than cancer patients. ii) Patients of both groups assessed their relatives to be approximately equally distressed. Compared with their own distress, cancer patients assessed their relatives as more frequently and on average more severely distressed. More than 50 % of all patients regarded their own disease as the cause of their relatives' distress. iii) The desire for support in both groups was about 18 %. iv) Doctors and psychologists were usually named as potential contact persons.

CONCLUSIONS

The expansion of psychosocial support services for non-tumor patients and their relatives seems necessary. The establishment of appropriate screening methods should be considered. Further studies in other clinical areas are required.

[Challenges for clinical trials in oncology within the scope of early benefit assessment of drugs]

Until May 31, 2015 the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) conducted 108 assessments for various diseases on the basis of 103 dossiers within the scope of the early benefit assessment of drugs pursuant to the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG). 29 of these assessments (28 dossiers) referred to advanced stages of oncologic (including neoplastic-hematologic) diseases. In 21 of these 29 assessments (72%), IQWiG found an added benefit for at least one subpopulation or subgroup, compared to 33% with non-oncologic diseases. For oncologic diseases, the extent of benefit was classified as "major" in six assessments (21%), compared to 5% for non-oncologic disorders. In contrast, the conclusions of the oncologic studies were less certain: only one assessment provided proof (of an added benefit); for non-oncologic diseases, this was the case in eight assessments. A distinctive methodological feature of the available oncologic studies is that, as a rule, treatment switching was planned in the event of progression (normally on the basis of imaging or laboratory findings) and that shortly afterwards the follow-up of important endpoints (adverse events and patient-reported outcomes) was normally discontinued. In particular, the pre-specified option in the study protocol allowing the control group to switch treatment to the experimental intervention after progression ("protocol-permitted treatment switches") makes it extremely difficult to interpret the results beyond the outcome "progression" (or progression-free survival). This treatment switching is mostly justified by reference to ethical necessity. This, however, alleges that the experimental intervention (i. e., the new drug) is superior to the control intervention, which means that circular reasoning is unavoidable. But despite this, oncologic studies are better than their reputation. Hence, so far the results of the early benefit assessment of new drugs (regarding the existence and extent of an added benefit) are clearly better than expected. In this context, the IQWiG methods have not been shown to be extremely conservative. On the contrary: in all cases where IQWiG rated the extent of benefit as "major" for the oncologic indications, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) has so far not shared this assessment, and instead rated the extent of benefit to be smaller.