Women with gynaecological cancer (GC) experience significant morbidity with associated needs for support, not all of which are currently met by the current system. Types and levels of unmet needs vary across age and the care continuum. This study aimed to identify the shared and unique supportive care needs of younger and older GC patients and survivors to inform improved supportive care. Nineteen younger and ten older women, 3 months to 5 years post a GC diagnosis, were purposively recruited during active treatment, and at early and extended survivorship. Audiotaped and transcribed semi‐structured interviews were thematically analysed to establish areas of needs. GC patients reported nine shared needs relating to support, isolation, uncertainty, information, asking questions, escape from illness, advocacy, loss and finding meaning. Younger patients reported unique needs related to the impact of treatment‐induced menopause. There is a need for a systematic screening process to identify women who require and want additional help, to ensure appropriate and timely assistance or referrals are provided. Identification of needs will allow health professionals to provide relevant and timely information and support services, resulting in improved quality of life for women affected by GC.

Background Patients and clinicians report difficulties with the process of informed consent to clinical trials and audiotape audits show that critical information is often omitted or poorly presented. Decision aids (DAs) may assist in improving consent.

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.

Objective: To assess the relative impact of cognitive and emotional aspects of shared decision making (SDM) on patient outcomes. Practice Implications: It is important that doctors focus on both sharing decisions and managing emotions in consultations. Communication skills training addressing both these areas may be an effective way to improve diverse patient outcomes. Methods

No abstract