In general, outcome data on second opinion are divergent and scarce. Yet, with patients' demand for second opinion and influence of second opinion on treatment decisions, a structured, high quality and transparent second-opinion program seems mandatory. Such a program may support patient-physician communication and improve the flow of information, as well as decision-making. Its evaluation should be independent from the provider of the second opinion.

Objective Public discussion and health-care systems worldwide have been focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic. Does it have an impact on cancer care today? Materials and methods The PRIO ("Prevention and Integrative Oncology") Working Group (German Cancer Society) has initiated an online survey for physicians, medical staff and patients on April 16, 2020. Between April 16 and April 19, 47 doctors and 146 patients filled in the questionnaires. The survey is ongoing. We present the first data. Results A majority of German patients (76%) and physicians (71%) report moderate or high restriction in their daily life. A minority (patients 25%, physicians 13%) was not worried that necessary treatments or diagnostics were restricted. Organizing cancer care needs more time and efforts for 56% of all reporting doctors. 98% of all oncologists think that restriction of family visits has a negative impact on the mental health of cancer patients. Half of all participants (patients 43%, physicians 47%) expect negative consequences on the physical status of our patients. Patients feel the existing emotional stress in 34% of their physicians. 52% of physicians fear mental and/or physical longtime consequences for themselves. Conclusion There is a high level of mental and physical stress triggered by the present COVID-19 management. After only a few weeks, human resources are limited. They will be the most important key for further health-care services for patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.

An increasing number of patients and relatives use the Internet to get additional or initial information about their disease. The aim of the study was to reevaluate the Internet usage among German cancer patients. Using a standardized questionnaire, we did an anonymous survey on patients attending a series of lectures on complementary medicine in 2014. We received 255 questionnaires. Nearly 80 % of the participants stated that they used the Internet to read up information about health or medicine issues. There was no significant difference regarding gender, age, or status (patient, current treatment/former treatment; relatives). Most users use the Internet in order to get additional information after a consultation with a physician (82.2 %). Important qualities from the view of the patient are a trustable source (65.3 %), information from experts (59.6 %), and actual information (52.8 %). There is an increasing number of patients in Germany looking for information in the Internet mostly in the intention of getting additional information. Yet, as the quality of information is heterogeneous, false information may lead to distrust in the doctor or wrong decision-making. Accordingly, organizations working on improving quality of cancer care should engage in conveying comprehensive and actual information adapted to the needs of patients. Physicians should know trustful websites for referral of patients.

While CAM usage is agreed upon by many physicians due to the idea that it helps patients to become active and feel more in control of the disease, our data are in favor of the contrary. A strong perception of external locus of control seems to be a driver of CAM usage. Physicians should be aware of this association when counseling on CAM.

No abstract

The number of people using the Internet as a source of cancer information has increased over the past years and will rise in the future. However, only half of the population has the knowledge and capability to access and differentiate the massive web-based data. Improving eHealth literacy within the public will expand the knowledge of regular patients and help them become a well-informed and equal partner in decision making.

No abstract

The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between information needs and cancer patients' perceptions of the impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Using a standardized questionnaire, we obtained data from patients who attended a series of lectures. The questionnaire included questions on their information needs, sources of information, satisfaction with information, and short questionnaires on self-efficacy, perception of the disease, and locus of control of reinforcement. Data was obtained from 185 patients. Our results showed that the sources of information that were most often used were physicians (84 %), print media (68 %), and the Internet (59 %); online fora (7.5 %), non-medical practitioners (9.7 %), and telephone-based counseling (8.6 %) were only used by a minority. Patients with a high perception of their own control over the disease more often used any source of information available to them and were more often interested in acquiring additional information. Higher self-efficacy was significantly associated with the need for information on all topics. Patients with a higher external locus of control significantly more often used sources of information and had significantly more need for additional information. By contrast, there were no associations with an internal locus of control. Neither external nor internal locus of control showed any associations with satisfaction with information. Information needs seem to be higher in patients with a high external locus of control and low self-efficacy. Physicians, other professionals, and institutions that provide information may take these relationships into consideration for tailoring their services to patients.