An exploratory cross-sectional study of the effects of ongoing relationships with accompanying patients on cancer care experience, self-efficacy, and psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal in Canada introduced accompanying patients (APs) into the breast cancer care trajectory. APs are patients who have been treated for breast cancer and have been integrated into the clinical team to expand the services offered to people affected by cancer. This study describes the profiles of the people who received the support and explores whether one-offs vs ongoing encounters with APs influence their experience of care, on self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and on their level of psychological distress. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional study was carried out among patients to compare patients who had one encounter with an AP (G1) with those who had had several encounters (G2). Five questionnaires were administered on socio-demographic characteristics, care pathway, evaluation of the support experience, self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. Logbooks, completed by the APs, determined the number of encounters. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations between the number of encounters, patient characteristics, care pathway, number of topics discussed, self-efficacy measures in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and December 2021, 60% of 535 patients who were offered support from an AP accepted. Of these, one hundred and twenty-four patients participated in the study. The study aimed to recruit a minimum of 70 patients with the expectation of obtaining at least 50 participants, assuming a response rate of 70%. There were no differences between G1 and G2 in terms of sociodemographic data and care pathways. Statistical differences were found between G1 and G2 for impacts on and the return to daily life (p = 0.000), the return to the work and impacts on professional life (p = 0.044), announcement of a diagnosis to family and friends (p = 0.033), and strategies for living with treatment under the best conditions (p = 0.000). Significant differences were found on the topics of cancer (p = 0.000), genetic testing (p = 0.023), therapeutic options (p = 0.000), fatigue following treatment (p = 0.005), pain and discomfort after treatment or surgery (p = 0.000), potential emotions and their management (p = 0.000) and the decision-making processes (p = 0.011). A significant relationship was found between the two groups for patients' ability to cope with cancer (p = 0.038), and their level of psychological distress at different stages of the care pathway (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows differences between one-time and ongoing support for cancer patients. It highlights the potential for APs to help patients develop self-efficacy and cope with the challenges of cancer treatment.

Accompanying patients in clinical oncology teams: Reported activities and perceived effects.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2018, four establishments in Quebec, Canada, have decided to implement the PAROLE-Onco programme, which introduced accompanying patients (APs) in healthcare teams to improve the experience of cancer patients. APs are patient advisors who have had a cancer treatment experience and who conduct consultations to complement the service offered by providing emotional, informational and educational support to patients undergoing treatments (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery), mostly for breast cancer. We aimed to explore the evolution of APs' perspectives regarding their activities within the clinical oncology teams as well as the perceived effects of their intervention with patients, the clinical team and themselves. METHODS: A qualitative study based on semistructured interviews and focus groups was conducted with APs at the beginning of their intervention (T1) and 2 years afterwards (T2). The themes discussed were APs' activities and the perceived effects of their interventions on themselves, on the patients and on the clinical team. RESULTS: In total, 20 APs were interviewed. In T2, APs' activities shifted from listening and sharing experiences to empowering patients by helping them become partners in their care and felt generally more integrated into the clinical team. APs help patients feel understood and supported, alleviate stress and become partners in the care they receive. They also alleviate the clinical team's workload by offering a complementary service through emotional support, which, according to them, helps patients feel calmer and more prepared for their appointments with healthcare professionals. They communicate additional information about their patients' health journey, which makes the appointment more efficient for healthcare professionals. When APs accompany patients, they feel as if they can make a difference in patients' lives. Their activities are perceived by some as an opportunity to give back but also as a way of giving meaning to their own experience, in turn serving as a learning experience. CONCLUSION: By mobilizing their experiential knowledge, APs provide emotional, informational, cognitive and navigational support, which allows patients to be more empowered in their care and which complements professionals' scientific knowledge, thereby helping to refine their sensitivity to the patients' experiences. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient-researchers have contributed to the study design, the conduct of the study, the data analysis and interpretation, as well as in the preparation and writing of this manuscript.

Patient and Citizen Participation in the Identification of Ethical Considerations Aiming to Address Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Promising Interventions in a Pandemic Context.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have been conducted to identify interventions that could contribute to alleviating the burden it has caused. The Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) has played a key role in informing the government of Québec regarding the evaluation of specific pandemic-related interventions. This process took place in a context characterized by a sense of urgency to assess and recommend potential interventions that could save lives and reduce the effects of the disease on populations and healthcare systems, which increased the pressure on the regulatory agencies leading these evaluations. While some of the interventions examined were considered promising, results from COVID-19 studies often led to uncertainty regarding their efficacy or safety. Regulatory agencies evaluating the value of promising interventions thus face challenges in deciding whether these should be made available to the population, particularly when assessing their benefit-risk balance. To shed light on these challenges, we identified underlying ethical considerations that can influence such an assessment. A rapid literature review was conducted in February 2021, to identify the main challenges associated with the benefit-risk balance assessment of promising interventions. To reinforce our understanding of the underlying ethical considerations, we initiated a discussion among various social actors involved in critical thinking surrounding the evaluation of promising interventions, including ethicists, clinicians and researchers involved in clinical or public health practice, as well as patients and citizens. This discussion allowed us to create a space for exchange and mutual understanding among these various actors who contributed equally to the identification of ethical considerations. The knowledge and perspectives stemming from the scientific literature and those consulted were integrated in a common reflection on these ethical considerations. This allowed patients and citizens, directly affected by the evaluation of pandemic-related interventions and the resulting social choices, to contribute to the identification of the relevant ethical considerations. It also allowed for reflection on the responsibilities of the various actors involved in the development, evaluation, and distribution of promising interventions in a setting of urgency and uncertainty, such as that brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.