Cancer Survivors' Evolving Perceptions of a New Supportive Virtual Program.

This qualitative study begins to explore cancer survivors' evolving perceptions of "Focus on the Future," a 6-week supportive virtual program led by trained volunteers and health care professionals. Through purposive sampling, participants (n = 10) enrolled in the program were individually interviewed shortly before attending, mid-way through, and at program completion. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to develop key elements of program expectations and users' perceptions over time. Three themes transpired from the data: (1) Trustworthiness and timeliness of survivorship information and expert guidance, (2) Normalization of survivors' experiences, and (3) Virtual program delivery issues. Some participants' perceptions remained unchanged from pre-program expectations to post-program completion such as appreciating the efficiency of virtual delivery and "health safe" exchanges given the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, other perceptions became more polarized including drawbacks related to "more superficial" virtual connections and uneven topic relevance as the program evolved. Program participants appreciated timely information and support from volunteers and experts through virtual means and consecutive weekly sessions. Gauging participants' perceptions across time also offer opportunities to adjust program content and delivery features. Future research should explore key program development strategies to ensure that cancer supportive programs are optimally person-centered, co-designed, and situation-responsive.

Exploring healthcare professionals' experiences with informal family cancer caregiving.

Caring for a family member with cancer is often associated with significant cognitive, emotional, and physical demands. Although considerable research has explored informal cancer caregiver role burden, research has seldom focused on the experiences of individuals who hold the dual role of informal caregiver and healthcare professional. This qualitative study begins to explore this dual role experience. Participants (N = 12) who had at least 1 year of prior professional experience and cared for a family member with cancer were recruited conveniently from a large university-affiliated hospital in Montreal, Quebec. Individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted. Using thematic analysis, key themes were developed from verbatim transcripts: (1) salient dual role advantages, (2) significant challenges related to this role, (3) changes in professional practice as a consequence of informal caregiving, and (4) important palliative and end-of-life care access issues. Whereas professional knowledge helped advocate on behalf of patients, the dual role often came with over-solicitation from others, enhanced sense of responsibility, increased burden, and significant distress. Further study of critical ramifications linked to jointly enacting informal and professional caregiving across various health contexts should continue to inform supportive care strategies for this understudied yet increasingly prevalent segment of the caregiver population.

Investigating a Participatory Intervention in Multidisciplinary Cancer Care Teams Using an Integrative Organizational Model: A Study Protocol.

Multidisciplinary teams encounter many challenges that can lead to higher levels of distress and burnout. This trend is acutely prevalent among multidisciplinary cancer care teams who frequently contend with increased task complexity and numbers of patients. Resilience is emerging as a critical resource that may optimize team members' psychological health and wellbeing, work efficiency, and organizational agility, while reducing burnout. Accordingly, the proposed study aims to implement and evaluate a promising participatory interventional approach that fosters team resilience. Specifically, the effects of the intervention on participating team members will be compared to a control group of non-participating team members. This intervention's core components include skills training, patient-centered meetings, talking spaces, and an agile problem-solving approach. The proposed study also seeks to determine whether enhanced resilience improves team mental health status and organizational outcomes. A participatory interventional approach will be implemented and assessed at three-time intervals [i.e., pre-intervention deployment (N = 375), 12 months post-deployment (N = 236), and 24 months post-deployment (N = 146)] across five cancer care teams in three Quebec healthcare institutions. A mixed methods design will be used that includes observations, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and self-report questionnaires. Direct observation will document team functioning and structural resources (e.g., meetings, conflict management, and leadership). Semi-structured interviews will explore participants' experience with activities related to the participatory interventional approach, its perceived benefits and potential challenges. Focus groups will explore participants' perceptions of their team's resilience and the effectiveness of the intervention. Questionnaires will assess support, recognition, empowerment, organizational justice, individual resilience, psychological safety, work climate, team resilience, workplace burnout, engagement, quality of work life, wellbeing, and organizational citizenship behaviors, and sociodemographic variables. Moreover, objective measures including absenteeism and staff turnover will be obtained via human resource records. Structural equation modeling will be used to test the study's hypotheses. The proposed protocol and related findings will provide stakeholders with quantitative and qualitative data concerning a participatory interventional approach to optimize team effectiveness. It will also identify critical factors implicated in favorable organizational outcomes in connection with multidisciplinary cancer care teams. Expected results and future directions are also presented herein.

A Structural Equation Model of the Effect of Masculinity and Avoidant Coping on Gay and Bisexual Men's Sexual Risk-Taking.

This study aims to extend the scientific knowledge base on the association between masculine norm adherence and sexual risk-taking, in the context of gay and bisexual men, by examining emotional suppression, social support seeking, and avoidant coping as potential mediating pathways. A sample of 482 gay and bisexual men was recruited. Structural equation modeling was used to assess for mediation. Findings revealed that although gender role conflict and conformity to masculine norms (i.e., the two masculine norm adherence predictor variables) did not have a direct effect on sexual risk-taking, a significant indirect effect was observed for gender role conflict on sexual risk-taking via increased avoidant coping. Accordingly, gender role conflict and avoidant coping may create a unique effect on sexual risk-taking whereby the effect of gender role conflict on sexual risk-taking is not transmitted directly but only indirectly through the mediating role of avoidant coping. Future research directions are discussed.

Increasing access to psychosocial oncology services means becoming more person-centered and situation-responsive.

Current approaches in cancer supportive care call for enhanced patient access, personalized care, and higher service quality and performance. Person-centered care (PCC) is respectful and responsive to individuals' needs, preferences, and context. PCC is likely to enhance access to relevant resources and services as the cancer experience and trajectory unfold. However, significant gaps still exist in accessing supportive modalities across the cancer trajectory. Too often, affected individuals must contend with institution-centric rather than personalized modalities, practices, and schedules. In this commentary, we review the evidence on the distinct needs and preferences of individuals affected by cancer and highlight key factors significantly associated with patient experiences and satisfaction. Recommendations are made to enhance access, relevance, and a fuller integration of cancer service delivery. Last, we discuss how implementing these recommendations aligns with potentially more cost-effective psychosocial oncology support while directly addressing access to timely psychosocial care.