Perceptions toward issues in cancer care for people with mental illness among psychiatric care providers: A questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce cancer care disparities in people with mental illness, this study aimed to quantify psychiatric care providers' perceptions regarding issues that are insufficiently addressed or difficult to address. METHODS: Psychiatric care providers at 23 psychiatric hospitals in Japan were surveyed using mail questionnaires. Respondents were asked to rate 15 items with four categories related to insufficiencies/difficulties in cancer care for patients with mental illness on a five-point Likert scale. We analyzed the proportion of respondents who answered "insufficient/difficult" for each item. RESULTS: A total of 255 (76.3%) psychiatric care providers responded. For questions related to the skills and attitudes of psychiatric professionals, 48.3%-58.4% of respondents perceived that efforts for supporting cancer screening and treatment were insufficient. For the questions related to collaborations between cancer and psychiatric care providers, 75.3% of respondents perceived that inpatient visits between psychiatric and cancer hospitals were insufficient. For the questions related to in-psychiatric-hospital medical systems, 50.2%-87.2% of respondents perceived that support for screening, diagnosis/treatment, and palliative care for psychiatric inpatients were insufficient/difficult. 41.9%-57.4% of respondents perceived that social services in the community were insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified the level of insufficiency/difficulty perceived by psychiatric care providers regarding issues related to cancer care for people with mental illness. Psychiatric care providers are required to have knowledge and skills in cancer screening and treatment. To improve access to cancer prevention, treatment, and palliative care, it may be helpful to establish systems to promote coordination between cancer hospitals and psychiatric hospitals.

Patients' acceptability and implementation outcomes of a case management approach to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia: a qualitative secondary analysis of a mixed-method randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the efficacy of case management (CM) interventions to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening for patients with schizophrenia. This study aimed to clarify patients' acceptability of the intervention and the helpful components of the intervention. Simultaneously, the study aimed to determine the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the intervention from the perspective of psychiatric care providers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a secondary qualitative analysis of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of the CM approach to encourage participation in cancer screening for people with schizophrenia. The intervention comprised education and patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening. Interviews were conducted with patients who received the intervention and staff from two psychiatric hospitals in Japan who delivered the intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 172 patients with schizophrenia who participated in the trial, 153 were included. In addition, three out of six providers were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a structured interview, the case manager asked participants about patient acceptability and the helpful components of the intervention. Content analysis was conducted for the responses obtained, and the number of responses was tabulated by two researchers. For the interviews with the providers, opinions obtained from verbatim transcripts were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Forty-three of the 56 patients perceived that the intervention was acceptable. For the intervention component, inperson counselling with an explanation of the screening process by psychiatric care providers was most frequently reported by the patients as helpful (48 of the 68 respondents). Psychiatric care providers evaluated the intervention as acceptable, appropriate and easy to understand and administer. However, providing the intervention to all patients simultaneously was considered difficult with the current human resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the CM intervention was perceived as acceptable by patients and acceptable and appropriate by psychiatric care providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000036017.

Issues of cancer care in people with mental disorders as perceived by cancer care providers: A quantitative questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce cancer care disparities, this study aimed to clarify the difficulties in cancer care for people with mental disorders as perceived by cancer care providers. METHODS: Cancer care providers at 17 designated cancer hospitals in Japan were surveyed using mail questionnaires. Respondents were asked to rate 29 items related to difficulties or insufficiencies in cancer care for patients with mental disorders on a five-point Likert scale. We analyzed the proportion of respondents who answered "difficult/insufficient" in each item. We also calculated the proportions of responders stratified according to the presence of psychiatric support systems within their hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 388 (58.4%) cancer care providers responded. Among the issues related to "difficulties in diagnosing and treating cancer," support for decision-making, assessment of treatment adherence, and assessment of physical symptoms were perceived as most difficult (73.5%-81.5% of respondents). Among the issues related to 'difficulties or insufficiencies in collaboration among multidisciplinary health care providers,' the issue of advance consultation and sharing information with the patient's primary psychiatric care provider was perceived as most difficult (52.2%). Among the issues related to "insufficiencies of in-hospital and community medical systems," education to provide reasonable accommodation was perceived as most insufficient (47.4%). The perceived difficulties of over half of the issues varied significantly between hospitals depending on the level of psychiatric support systems. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified the difficulties of cancer care in patients with mental disorders as perceived by cancer care providers. Some issues may be resolved by psychiatric liaison teams.

Cancer care for people with mental disorders: A qualitative survey among cancer care and psychiatric care professionals in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: It is widely assumed that there are multiple levels (from individual to policy level) of problems involving disparities in cancer care for people with mental disorders. However, few studies have comprehensively investigated issues as perceived by medical professionals. The purpose of the present study was to identify a wide range of issues in cancer care for people with mental disorders and offer corresponding solutions for both cancer care professionals and psychiatric care professionals. METHODS: We distributed open-ended questionnaires to 754 healthcare professionals in various medical facilities, including designated cancer hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, and other local healthcare/welfare facilities. Participants were asked to describe issues in cancer care for people with mental disorders. RESULTS: Of the 754 recruited professionals, 439 (58.2%) responded to the questionnaire. Sixty-one issues were extracted and categorized into 10 categories: patient factors; isolation and lack of support; obstacles to transport; socioeconomic factors; attitudes of psychiatric professionals; medical system of psychiatric hospitals; attitudes of cancer care professionals; medical system of designated cancer hospitals; regional cancer medical systems; and lack of coordination among multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. Forty-eight specific solutions were summarized into 12 goals. CONCLUSIONS: The present study widely identified issues causing disparities in cancer care for patients with mental disorders. We found that the issues extended from the patient level to the public-policy level. Our findings suggest the need for a multidisciplinary approach that includes both cancer and psychiatric care professionals to address the gap in cancer care for people with mental disorders.

Encouraging participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy of a case management approach to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening among people with schizophrenia. METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel group trial. We recruited outpatients with schizophrenia aged 40 years or over from two psychiatric hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment as usual or case management intervention plus treatment as usual using a web-based system. Attending clinicians and participants were unmasked to the allocation. Case management included education and patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening using a fecal occult blood test. Treatment as usual included direct mail government recommendations. The primary endpoint was participation in colorectal cancer screening assessed using municipal records. We also assessed the secondary endpoint of participation in other cancer screenings (lung, gastric, breast, and cervical). RESULTS: Between 3 June and 9 September 2019, 172 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the case management plus treatment as usual group (n = 86) or treatment as usual group (n = 86). One participant was ineligible and another withdrew consent; both were excluded from analysis. A significantly higher proportion of participants received colorectal cancer screening in the case management plus treatment as usual group than in the treatment as usual group (40 [47.1%] of 85 participants vs. 10 [11.8%] of 85 participants, p < 0.0001). The proportion of lung cancer screening also increased. No serious adverse events associated with the study intervention occurred. CONCLUSION: The case management intervention to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening was effective for patients with schizophrenia.

A randomised controlled trial of a case management approach to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia in psychiatric outpatient clinics: study protocol for the J-SUPPORT 1901 (ACCESS) study.

INTRODUCTION: One of the reasons for the high mortality rate from cancer in people with schizophrenia is delay in diagnosis. Many studies have shown lower cancer screening rates in people with schizophrenia; however, there are no interventions for people with schizophrenia to increase cancer screening. Therefore, we developed a case management (CM) intervention to encourage participation in cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of CM to encourage participation in cancer screening for people with schizophrenia, with particular focus on colorectal cancer screening by faecal occult blood testing, compared with usual intervention (UI), namely, municipal public education. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an individually randomised, parallel group trial with blinded outcome assessments. The participants will be randomly allocated to either the CM plus UI group or UI alone group in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based program at a data management centre. The primary end point of the study is participation in colorectal cancer screening in the year of intervention, which will be assessed based on municipal records. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is performed in accordance with Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects published by Japan's Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology and the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare and the modified Act on the Protection of Personal Information as well as the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee at the Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Okayama University Hospital on 23 April 2019 (approval number: RIN1904-003). The findings of this trial will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000036017.