Objective: In the past decade localized prostate cancer (LPC) management has been shifting from three radical treatment options (radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy) to also include active surveillance (AS). This study examines men with LPC and partners' experiences of choosing between AS and radical treatments, and their experiences of AS when selected.Methods: Qualitative descriptive research design. Interviewed participants were men, and partners of men, who had either chosen radical treatment immediately following diagnosis, or who had been on AS for at least three months. AS was the recommended treatment. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed and inter-rater reliability integrated.Results: Twenty-one men and 14 partners participated. Treatment decisions reflected varied reactions to prostate cancer information, regularly described as contradictory, confusing, and stressful. Men and partners commonly misunderstood AS but could describe monitoring procedures. Partners often held the perception that they were also on AS. Men and partners usually coped with AS but were sometimes encumbered by treatment decision-making memories, painful biopsies, ongoing conflicting information, and unanswered medical questions. Radical treatment was selected when cancer progression was feared or medically indicated. Some preferred doctors to select treatments.Conclusions: To reduce distress frequently experienced by men diagnosed with LPC and their partners during treatment decision-making and ongoing AS monitoring, the following are needed: improved community and medical awareness of AS; consistent information about when radical treatment is required; and consistent, unbiased information on treatment options, prognostic indicators, and side effects. Regularly up-dated decisional support information/aids incorporating men's values are imperative.

Well-structured shared care for men with low- to moderate-risk prostate cancer is feasible and appears to produce clinically similar outcomes to those of standard care, at a lower cost.

No abstract

ObjectivesUnderstanding the difficulties faced by different migrant groups is vital to address disparities and inform targeted health‐care service delivery. Migrant oncology patients experience increased morbidity, mortality and psychological distress, with this tentatively linked to language and communication difficulties. The objective of this exploratory study was to investigate the communication barriers and challenges experienced by Arabic, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) speaking oncology patients in Australia.MethodsThis study employed a cross‐sectional design using patient‐reported outcome survey data from migrant and English‐speaking Australian‐born patients with cancer. Patients were recruited through oncology clinics and Australian state cancer registries. Data were collected regarding patient clinical and demographic characteristics and health‐care and communication experiences. Data from the clinics and registries were combined for analysis.ResultsSignificant differences were found between migrant groups in demographic characteristics, communication and health‐care experiences, and information and care preferences. Chinese patients cited problems with understanding medical information, the Australian health‐care system, and communicating with their health‐care team. Conversely, Arabic‐ and Greek‐speaking patients reported higher understanding of the health‐care system, and less communication difficulties.ConclusionsOur study findings suggest that migrant groups differ from each other in their health communication expectations and requirements. Lower education and health literacy of some groups may play a role in poorer health outcomes. Public health interventions and assistance provided to migrants should be tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of that language or cultural group. Future research directions are discussed.

Background Health care systems are increasingly looking to mobile device technologies (mobile health) to improve patient experience and health outcomes. SecondEars is a smartphone app designed to allow patients to audio-record medical consultations to improve recall, understanding, and health care self-management. Novel health interventions such as SecondEars often fail to be implemented post pilot-testing owing to inadequate user experience (UX) assessment, a key component of a comprehensive implementation strategy. Objective This study aimed to pilot the SecondEars app within an active clinical setting to identify factors necessary for optimal implementation. Objectives were to (1) investigate patient UX and acceptability, utility, and satisfaction with the SecondEars app, and (2) understand health professional perspectives on issues, solutions, and strategies for effective implementation of SecondEars. Methods A mixed methods implementation study was employed. Patients were invited to test the app to record consultations with participating oncology health professionals. Follow-up interviews were conducted with all participating patients (or carers) and health professionals, regarding uptake and extent of app use. Responses to the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) were also collected. Interviews were analyzed using interpretive descriptive methodology; all quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. Results A total of 24 patients used SecondEars to record consultations with 10 multidisciplinary health professionals. In all, 22 of these patients used SecondEars to listen to all or part of the recording, either alone or with family. All 100% of patient participants reported in the MARS that they would use SecondEars again and recommend it to others. A total of 3 themes were identified from the patient interviews relating to the UX of SecondEars: empowerment, facilitating support in cancer care, and usability. Further, 5 themes were identified from the health professional interviews relating to implementation of SecondEars: changing hospital culture, mitigating medico-legal concerns, improving patient care, communication, and practical implementation solutions. Conclusions Data collected during pilot testing regarding recording use, UX, and health professional and patient perspectives will be important for designing an effective implementation strategy for SecondEars. Those testing the app found it useful and felt that it could facilitate the benefits of consultation recordings, along with providing patient empowerment and support. Potential issues regarding implementation were discussed, and solutions were generated. Trial Registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000730202; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373915&isClinicalTrial=False