Purpose Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is prevalent, distressing, and long lasting. This study evaluated the impact of a theoretically/empirically based intervention (ConquerFear) on FCR. Methods Eligible survivors had curable breast or colorectal cancer or melanoma, had completed treatment (not including endocrine therapy) 2 months to 5 years previously, were age > 18 years, and had scores above the clinical cutoff on the FCR Inventory (FCRI) severity subscale at screening. Participants were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to either five face-to-face sessions of ConquerFear (attention training, metacognitions, acceptance/mindfulness, screening behavior, and values-based goal setting) or an attention control (Taking-it-Easy relaxation therapy). Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (T0), immediately post-therapy (T1), and 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) later. The primary outcome was FCRI total score. Results Of 704 potentially eligible survivors from 17 sites and two online databases, 533 were contactable, of whom 222 (42%) consented; 121 were randomly assigned to intervention and 101 to control. Study arms were equivalent at baseline on all measured characteristics. ConquerFear participants had clinically and statistically greater improvements than control participants from T0 to T1 on FCRI total ( P < .001) and severity subscale scores ( P = .001), which were maintained at T2 ( P = .017 and P = .023, respectively) and, for FCRI total only, at T3 ( P = .018), and from T0 to T1 on three FCRI subscales (coping, psychological distress, and triggers) as well as in general anxiety, cancer-specific distress (total), and mental quality of life and metacognitions (total). Differences in FCRI psychological distress and cancer-specific distress (total) remained significantly different at T3. Conclusion This randomized trial demonstrated efficacy of ConquerFear compared with attention control (Taking-it-Easy) in reduction of FCRI total scores immediately post-therapy and 3 and 6 months later and in many secondary outcomes immediately post-therapy. Cancer-specific distress (total) remained more improved at 3- and 6-month follow-up.

Purpose People with a history of melanoma commonly report a fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), yet psychologic support is not routinely offered as part of ongoing melanoma care. This randomized controlled trial examined the efficacy of a psychoeducational intervention to reduce FCR and improve psychologic adjustment in this patient group compared with usual care. Methods The intervention comprised a newly developed psychoeducational resource and three telephone-based psychotherapeutic sessions over a 1-month period timed in accordance with dermatologic appointments. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 80) or usual care (n = 84). Assessments were completed at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months after dermatologic appointments. Linear mixed models were used to examine differences between treatment and control groups for patient-reported outcomes, including FCR, anxiety, stress, depression, melanoma-related knowledge, health behaviors, satisfaction with melanoma care, unmet needs, and health-related quality of life. Results At 6 months, the intervention group reported lower FCR severity, trigger, and distress scores than the control group in the baseline-adjusted models; the between-group mean difference was -1.9 for FCR severity (95% CI, -3.1 to -0.7; P = .002), -2.0 for FCR triggers (95% CI, -3.3 to -0.7; P = .003), and -0.7 for FCR distress (95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1; P = .03). The decrease in FCR severity (but not triggers or distress) remained statistically significant after adjustment for other covariates ( P = .04). At 6 months, the intervention group also reported lower stress (-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.2; P = .03) and improved melanoma-related knowledge (1.7; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6; P < .001) compared with the control group. No differences were found between groups for other secondary outcomes. Conclusion This newly developed evidence-based psychoeducational intervention was effective in reducing FCR and stress and increasing melanoma-related knowledge in people at high risk for another melanoma.

ObjectivesUse of the term ‘patient’ has been recently debated, compared with alternatives including ‘consumer’ and ‘client’. This scoping study aimed to provide an integrated view of preferred labels across healthcare contexts and countries to clarify labelling preferences of individuals accessing healthcare.DesignScoping study.Data sourcesA preliminary literature search using GoogleScholar, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO found 43 key papers discussing terminology for labelling individuals accessing healthcare services. We then used citation chaining with PubMed and GoogleScholar to identify studies discussing term preferences among healthcare recipients.Eligibility criteriaNo date limits were applied, and all healthcare settings were considered. Primary research studies examining terminology preferences of individuals accessing healthcare, published in peer-reviewed journals were eligible.Data extraction and synthesisAll authors extracted data regarding preferred term and study characteristics, and assessed reporting quality of the studies using criteria relevant to our design.ResultsWe identified 1565 articles, of which 47 met inclusion criteria. Six articles that examined preference for personal address (eg, first name) were excluded. Of the remaining 41 studies, 33 examined generic terms (‘patient’, ‘client’, ‘consumer’) and 8 focused on cancer survivorship. Of the 33 examining generic terms, 27 reported a preference for ‘patient’ and four for ‘client’. Samples preferring ‘client’ were typically based in mental health settings and conducted in the USA. Of the eight cancer survivorship studies, five found a preference for ‘survivor’, and three ‘someone who had had cancer’.ConclusionsOverall, healthcare recipients appear to prefer the term ‘patient’, with few preferring ‘consumer’. Within general clinical and research contexts, it therefore seems appropriate to continue using the label ‘patient’ in the absence of knowledge about an individual’s preferences. Reasons for preferences (eg, familiarity, social identity) and the implications of labelling for healthcare have not been investigated adequately, necessitating future empirical (including qualitative) research.

Results provide partial support for the cognitive processing model of FCR. Psychological factors were found to play an important role in FCR morbidity after controlling for demographic/medical factors. More intrusive thoughts and negative beliefs about worry were strong independent predictors of FCR morbidity. Cancer survivors with clinically significant FCR may benefit from assessment for intrusive thoughts and metacognitions and delivery of trauma- and/or metacognitive-based interventions accordingly.

Objective ConquerFear is a metacognitive intervention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) with proven efficacy immmediately and 6 months post‐treatment. This qualitative study documented barriers and facilitators to the sustainability of ConquerFear from the perspective of study therapists. Methods Fourteen therapists who had delivered ConquerFear in a randomised controlled trial completed a semi‐structured phone interview, reaching theoretical saturation. Themes from thematic analysis were mapped to the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) implementation framework. Results Participants were 13 males and one female with, on average, 14 years psycho‐oncology experience. Nine over‐arching themes were identified, falling into three domains, which when present, were facilitators, and if absent, were barriers: evidence (intervention credibility, experienced efficacy, perceived need for intervention); context (positive attitude to and capacity for survivorship/FCR care, favourable therapist orientation and flexibility, strong referral pathways); and facilitation of implementation (intervention/service fit, intervention/patient fit, and training, support, and provided resources). Conclusions ConquerFear is a sustainable intervention in routine clinical practise. Facilitators included a sound evidence base; a receptive context; good fit between the intervention, therapist orientation, and patient need; and flexibility of delivery. Where absent, these factors served as barriers. These results have implications for enhancing uptake of psycho‐oncology interventions in routine care.

Several complex treatment decisions may be offered to women with early stage breast cancer, about a range of treatments from different modalities including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve decision-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically identify, describe and appraise the literature on treatment decision aids for women with early breast cancer, synthesise the data and identify breast cancer decisions that lack a decision aid. A prospectively developed search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and abstract databases from major conferences. Data were extracted into a pre-piloted form. Quality and risk of bias were measured using Qualsyst criteria. Results were synthesised into narrative format. Thirty-three eligible articles were identified, evaluating 23 individual treatment decision aids, comprising 13 randomised controlled trial reports, seven non-randomised comparative studies, eight single-arm pre-post studies and five cross-sectional studies. The decisions addressed by these decision aids were: breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy (+/- reconstruction); use of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy; radiotherapy; and fertility preservation. Outcome measures were heterogeneous, precluding meta-analysis. Decisional conflict decreased, and knowledge and satisfaction increased, without any change in anxiety or depression, in most studies. No studies were identified that evaluated decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy, or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Decision aids are available and improved decision-related outcomes for many breast cancer treatment decisions including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy could not be found, and may be warranted.

Purpose: Many evidence-based interventions are not implemented into routine care, thus failing to impact patient outcomes. A critical area of research is to investigate factors influencing intervention sustainability. ConquerFear is an effective intervention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) which resulted in greater reductions in FCR immmediately and 6 months post treatment than a relaxation control intervention. This qualitative study aimed to determine the barriers and facilitators to sustainability of ConquerFear from the perspectives of study therapists. Methods: Twenty-six therapists who had delivered ConquerFear in the randomised controlled trial were invited to participate in a semi-structured phone interview. Theoretical saturation was reached after 14 interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes which were then mapped to the PAHRiS implementation framework. Results: Participants comprised 13 males and 1 female, with on average 14 years of experience working in psycho-oncology. Nine over-arching themes falling into three domains were identified: Evidence (intervention credibility, experienced efficacy, perceived need for intervention); Context (attitude to and capacity for survivorship/ FCR care, therapist orientation and flexibility, limited referral) and Facilitation (intervention/service fit, intervention/patient fit, and training, support and provided resources). Conclusions: Results suggest that ConquerFear is a sustainable intervention in routine clinical practice. Facilitators included a sound evidence-base, a context where survivorship care is incorporated into service goals, and a good fit between the intervention and both therapist orientation and patient need. Flexibility of delivery and ability to adapt to patient need would assist sustainability. 4 Implications for cancer survivors: ConquerFear has the potential to sustainably reduce the impact of fear of cancer recurrence. It is important to establish the importance of survivorship care within cancer systems. While this study focused on ConquerFear, we believe these results have implications for other psycho-oncology intervention implementation efforts.

Objective: Guidelines recommend psychological intervention for children, adolescents, and adults with childhood-onset heart disease and their families, yet a comprehensive review of interventions is lacking. We aimed to determine the efficacy of psychological interventions for this population. Method: We searched 6 electronic databases until August, 2017 for English-language, controlled trials of psychological interventions for children, adolescents, or adults with congenital heart disease, inherited arrhythmias, or cardiomyopathies, or their family members. Outcomes of interest included: anxiety, depression, psychological stress and distress, health-related quality of life, coping and adjustment, developmental outcomes, physical health, and parent and family outcomes. Results: Of 7,660 identified articles, 11 articles reporting on 9 unique interventions met inclusion criteria. Four interventions included adolescents or adults with congenital heart disease, 2 of which also included individuals with cardiomyopathies, valvular heart conditions, or inherited arrhythmias. Five interventions targeted parents, predominantly mothers, of children with congenital heart disease. Clinical and methodological diversity was observed across trials. Parent-focused interventions demonstrated some improvements in maternal mental health, including anxiety and worry, coping, and family functioning. Evidence for the efficacy of interventions for adolescents and adults was limited. Most trials (8/9) were at "high" or "serious" risk of bias. Conclusions: Despite an established evidence-base for psychological interventions in other chronic illness populations, evidence of efficacy for children and adults with childhood-onset heart disease and their families was limited. Interventions using conceptual frameworks tested in methodologically robust trials are needed to enhance the provision of mental health care for people of all ages with childhoodonset heart disease.